p
0
$1.00 per Year
MARCH, 1915
Price, 10 Cents
Ube ©pen Court
A MONTHLY MAGAZINE
S)et>oted to tbe Science of lReUdion» tbe iRelidion ot Science* anb tbe £xten0ion ot tbe tReliaious f^arliament Ibea
Founded by Edward C. Hegeler.
VICTORY OF SAMOTHRACE (RESTORED). Representative of Ancient Greek Art.
XLhc <^pen Court IPubUsbiitd Company
CHICAGO
Per copy, 10 cents (sixpence). Yearly, $1.00 (in the U.P.U., Ss. 6d.).
Entered as Second'Qass Matter March 26, 1897, at the Post Office at Chicago, 111., under Act of March 3, 1879 Copyright by The Open Court Publishing Company, 1915
$1.00 per Year
MARCH, 1915
Price, 10 Cents
^be ©pen Court
A MONTHLY MAGAZINE
H)cvotc& to tbc Science ot IReligton, tbe IReligion ot Science, anb the Bitension ot tbe IReligious parliament f bea
Founded by Edward C. Hegeler.
VICTORY OF SAMOTHRACE (RESTORED). Representative of Ancient Greek Art.
XTbe ©pen Court publisbittd Company
CHICAGO
Pter copy, 10 cents (sixpence). Yearly, $1.00 (in the U.P.U., Ss. 6d).
Entered as Second-Qass Matter March 26, 1897, at the Post Office at Chicago, 111., under Act of March 3, i879
Copyright by The Open Court Publishing Company, 1915
VOL. XXIX. (No. 3) MARCH, 1915 NO. 706
CONTENTS:
PACK
Frontispiece. Aristophanes.
The Position of Holland in the European War. Albert Oosterheerdt . . . 129
The Night (A Drama). Barrie Americanus Neutralis 137
The Life of Socrates (Illustrated). William Ellery Leonard 151
Conybeare on "The Historical Christ." William Benjamin Smith 163
Germany's Destruction as Foretold by a Frenchman. A. Kampmeier 190
"Bos et Asinus" Again. Maximilian Josef Rudwin 191
Notes 192
Just Published-Holiday Edition
Truth and Other Poems: By Paul Carus. Cloth, white and gold, pp. 64. Price $1.00.
A group of brief philosophical problems in blank verse on the themet "Truth/* "Time," "Love" and "Death," and also a longer poem "De Rerum Natura," divided into three parts: (1) The Problem; (2) The Soul; (3) The All. The last poem, "Death," contains these lines:
"Traditions of parental past are we. Handing the gain of our expanding souls Down to succeeding ages which we build. The lives of predecessors live in us And we continue in the race to come. Thus in the Eleusinian Mysteries A burning torch was passed from hand to hand, And every hand was needed in the chain To keep the holy flame aglow— the symbol Of spirit-life, of higher aspirations."
The Open Court Publishing Company
Chicago - - London
ARISTOPHANES.
Frontispiece to The Open Court.
The Open Court
A MONTHLY MAGAZINE
Devoted to the Science of Religion, the Religion of Science, and the Extension of the Religious Parliament Idea.
VOL. XXIX. (No. 3) MARCH, 1915 NO. 706
Copyright by The Open Court Publishing Company, 1915
THE POSITION OF HOLLAND IN THE EURO- PEAN WAR.
BY ALBERT OOSTERHEERDT.
THE position of Holland in the great European war is both a difficult and a delicate one. In the center almost of the con- flict, related to the principal warring nations by ties of blood, com- merce and trade, herself an exponent of international law, which it is charged from many sides has been rudely broken, suffering greatly from the effects of the war in her trade, industry and gen- eral condition, compelled in addition to relieve a multitude of refugees, Holland has, though neutral, a most unenviable position, incurring nearly all the evil results of war without experiencing at the same time that national exaltation which is often a comple- ment of it. Officially, of course, the Netherlands are neutral, and, as far as the government is concerned, this neutrality has been admirably kept, nor have the people at large been committing overt acts of hostility toward any of the powers involved ; but it would be idle to assume that the Dutch are wholly without sympathies in this war, or that they alone have attained that state of philosophic calm which seems an absolute requirement for a complete neutral-
ity. ■ . . .
The ties of blood and racial origin alone make the position of the Dutch peculiarly difficult. One of the purest Germanic nations, although not without a strong admixture of Roman blood, speak- ing an almost entirely Teutonic language, which is perhaps a better development of the ancient German than the modern German with its artificial constructions and ponderous word-formations, the Dutch have at all times been an outpost of das Deutschttim, of equal rank with the other nations of Teutonic extraction. Part
130 THE OPEN COURT.
and parcel of Germanic civilization, their relations with Belgium, and especially Brabant and Flanders, populated by the Flemish people, practically of the same stock and using the same language, have been particularly close. Formerly, when the seventeen Nether- land provinces were united under the scepter of Charles V, only to be driven apart during the reign of his son Philip II, there existed the most intimate relationship between Belgium and Holland, two parts indeed of one country. From the southern Netherlands the northern provinces derived much, in fact nearly all of that which afterwards made the Dutch Republic famous in art, industry, trade and commerce. When the southern Netherlands were subdued by Don Juan of Spain and Alexander of Parma, the trade and com- merce of the great Flemish cities were moved almost bodily to Amsterdam and the other cities of Holland and Zealand, which owe their growth and industry in great part to the Flemish artisans, weavers, merchants and bankers who came fleeing from Antwerp and Flanders after the Spanish fury of 1585 had done its fearful work in that city. Henceforth the connection between the two Netherlands is broken, and Holland profits at the expense of Bel- gium. The political separation is accentuated by the religious and commercial antagonism ; the northern Netherlands wax great and mighty, the southern Netherlands lead a miserable existence under foreign domination.
This condition lasts for two centuries, and is ended by the effects of the great French revolution. France wrests Belgium from Austria, while, soon after, the Dutch republic comes to an inglorious end in 1795, the Prince of Orange taking refuge in Eng- land, and Holland as well as Belgium falling under French dom- ination. The fall of Napoleon sees both countries once more united ; to Holland, already independent in 1813, Belgium is added in 1815, at the command of the Vienna Congress. The union, al- though quite promising at first, comes to naught in 1830, when the clerical and liberal parties of Belgium form an alliance, set up a revolutionary government and defy the northern provinces and the king. An attempt by the Dutch government to suppress the revolt culminated in the famous "Ten Days' Campaign," at the end of which all Belgium lay at the feet of the victorious Dutch army. At this juncture, however, foreign powers intervened; both Eng- land and France assumed a threatening attitude, and by means of a French army compelled Holland to relinquish her hold upon Belgium. A long period of suspense followed, to be concluded finally by the neutrality treaty of 1839, signed by Great Britain,
THE POSITION OF HOLLAND IN THE EUROPEAN WAR. 131
France, Russia, the Germanic Confederation, and Belgium and Holland themselves.
The first period of Belgian independence was necessarily very French in spirit and culture, thereby suppressing the old national character of Flanders and Brabant. A natural reaction followed, in which the ancient Flemish verse and prose regained their former preeminence — a new period of youthful vigor and noble expression in the old language of the people. The connection with Holland, never entirely lost, became more intimate as the literatures of both countries became the common property of each. Many strands of different kinds continued to form an almost indissoluble link be- tween the two peoples, not least of which was the General Dutch Alliance (Algemeen N ederlandsch Verhond). Little wonder then that Dutch sympathy for Belgium in this war is ardent and sin- cere, and that the manifestations of charity and esteem have been universal and full throughout the whole of Holland. As indicative of Dutch feeling toward unhappy Belgium the following quotations from Neerlandia, the official organ of the General Dutch Alliance, which has its members in every civilized country in the world, will be found illuminating. Editorially, Neerlandia says: "Being pub- lished in a neutral country, Neerlandia must also be neutral. As Holland does not share in the fighting, the Dutch people must, both in speech and writing, withhold itself from making attacks. But as far as Belgium is concerned — for the major part inhabited by a people of Dutch race and Dutch language, accordingly, from the view-point of our Alliance and Neerlandia, inhabited by our race — we must, in all calmness and sincerity, utter a word of protest against this invasion.
"In fact, Germany herself has, in the utterances of her chan- cellor, admitted that she was doing Belgium an injustice. We do not enter here into an inquiry as to which power or which group of powers bears the blame for the outbreak of this world-wide war. We also do not raise the question whether Germany has good reasons for saying that she fights for her existence and not for conquest, and that she was compelled in self-defense to go through Belgium; willingly or unwillingly, she committed injustice.
"But we have confidence in the German people. They will, in case they are victorious, make amends and rectify what they have done to Belgium. And they will leave the country its freedom and independence. When the anger and the fever of war have passed they will have admiration and respect for the small nation which was too proud to allow invasion of its territory, and which.
132 THE OPEN COURT.
in defense of its honor and independence, dared to fight with a powerful enemy. And they will understand that the Dutch nation, although it remains firmly neutral, sympathizes with the heroic Belgian nation, in part a related nation, and gives expression to its admiration and pity."^
In perfect agreement with the thought and sentiment of this noble protest has been the hospitality and treatment accorded to the hundreds of thousands of Belgian refugees in Holland. The gov- ernment itself has done everything possible for these poor people, and besides the national fund for home charity another fund has been devoted exclusively to the Belgians. While greatly suffering herself, Holland has nobly responded to this additional burden, refusing to receive the proffered aid of Great Britain and America to help in caring for the thousands of destitute Belgians. A duty voluntarily undertaken would be fulfilled in the spirit in which it was begun ; this and national patriotism urged the government to reject these otherwise welcome offers of aid. That the Belgians have appreciated this generosity and unlimited hospitality on the part of Holland, which dispelled forever the unjust suspicions held against the Dutch in the beginning of the war, may be conclusively seen from an address to Queen Wilhelmina, sent by two Flemish representatives in the Belgian parliament and signed by many prom- inent refugees and others. The text of this eloquent address is too long to quote in full, but a translation of part of it will indicate its fervent feeling and heartfelt gratitude. "Not only," says the ad- dress, "have tens of thousands of Belgians to thank Holland for the preservation of their very lives, but also for their re-quickened faith in life and humanity Through her magnanimous love of human- ity has Holland, in these days, gained more than a battle of arms. She has earned the eternal gratitude of a sister nation, compelled the admiration of all combatants and brought upon herself a blessing from on high."-
While bleeding Belgium is thus a recipient of Dutch (and American) bounty, the relations of Holland with the other com- batant nations are no less close and essential. Germany, as might be expected, looms very large in the Dutch consciousness. From Ger- many their language and customs are derived, the royal house of Orange is of German descent, as are also many Dutch citizens whose forefathers fled to the Netherlands during the religious wars in Germany, or who themselves are of more recent immigration ;
' Page 199, Nov. 1914. English translation. ^ Neerlandia, Nov. 1914, page 208.
THE POSITION OF HOLLAND IN THE EUROPEAN WAR. 133
much of their science, philosophy and arts is of German importa- tion, while the phenomenal growth of their commerce, industry and trade within the last forty years has been in great part due to the equally remarkable development of Germany in the same period. In the great exodus of foreigners out of Germany at the beginning of the war the Dutch took little or no part; even more than the Americans they were honored and trusted by the Germans. While there was a fear in Holland at first that they would be drawn into the war. events have shown that Holland has nothing, for the pres- ent at least, to fear from Germany. The Germans have scrupu- lously respected Dutch neutrality, firmly as it has been kept. After the fall of Antwerp there was a great temptation to Germany to take possession of the mouth of the Scheldt, an undertaking which would certainly have resulted in war with the Dutch. But as Eng- land had refrained from sending her warships up the Scheldt, so Germany refrained from doing anything which would violate Dutch neutrality.
The Netherlands have grievances enough, however, against both England and Germany. Dutch trade is well-nigh suspended, thanks to the ubiquitous use of mines by these great powers. As the English admiralty board has declared, the entire North Sea is dangerous to shipping, greatly to the detriment and loss of the Scandinavian countries and Holland, thus illustrating the direct loss and danger to neutral lands in this most sanguinary war. At Rotterdam, where sixty boats normally enter port daily, there are now only a few steamers docking, and there is thus an almost total cessation of commerce and trade, making it difficult even to pro- cure sufficient foodstuffs from abroad. Thanks to the energetic action of the Dutch government there is no famine in the land, all hoarding of grain being strictly forbidden, and in many com- munes it is being sold under the direct control of the government. While there is not, and cannot be, a comparison with conditions in Belgium, there is acute distress and a serious condition of affairs, which cannot be allowed to last indefinitely.
That the Dutch are among the principal sufferers from the war may easily be inferred from the fact of their being, for their population, the greatest commercial and trading nation on earth. In actual exports and imports the Netherlands are only exceeded by Great Britain, France, Germany, and the United States. With one-seventh of the population. Holland has a total foreign com- merce nearly equal to that of France, with one-tenth of Germany's millions, more than one-half her trade. According to the Statistical
134 THE OPEN COURT.
Abstract of the United States for 1911 French imports and exports for the year 1910 amounted to $1,384,453,000 and $1,203,124,000, respectively; those of Germany, $2,126,322,000 and $1,778,969,000; the British figures are $3,300,738,000 and $2,094,467,000; and the American, $1,527,966,000 and $2,013,549,000; while the imports of little Holland in 1909 were $1,249,423,000, and her exports $984- 397,000,^ amazing totals for such a small country of but six million inhabitants. It is true, of course, that this marvelous foreign trade is to a great extent a carrying trade and does not represent the country's industry accurately, but it indicates emphatically the dominant trading character of the Dutch nation and the absolute necessity of keeping open the great trade-routes and neutral waters. That the principles of international law have been violated by the indiscriminate sowing of mines in the North Sea is indisputable, and that Holland, already handicapped by the great war at her borders, has thus innocently been deprived in great part of her main source of making a living, is equally beyond cavil or doubt.
It is, indeed, one of the tragic ironies of this war that the countries which have been among the foremost defenders of inter- national law and justice have also been cruelly suffering because of their violation. Belgium, whose very existence depends on the inviolability of an international treaty, herself the creation of the great powers of Europe, has seen her life-blood slowly ebbing away in defense of it ; Holland, the home of world-jurisprudence, whose great son, Hugo de Groot, laid the foundations of international law in his famous book, De Jure Belli ac Pads, the seat of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at The Hague, where it has its quarters in the Palace of Peace — the most hopeful building of modern times — has seen her trade and industry paralyzed in defi- ance of her neutrality ; both countries victims, albeit not in the same degree, of a cruel war which they were powerless to prevent. The Netherlands certainly did not deserve the fate meted out to them, for no country has done more for international comity and justice than Holland. As Motley says on this subject: "To the Dutch Republic, even more than to Florence at an earlier day, is the world indebted for practical instruction in that great science of political equilibrium which must always become more and more important as the various states of the civilized world are pressed more closely together, and as the struggle for preeminence becomes more feverish and fatal."* It is on this account that the neutral
* U. S. Statistical Abstract, pp. 762-3.
* Rise of the Dutch Republic, Preface, p. iv.
THE POSITION OF HOLLAND IN THE EUROPEAN WAR. 135
nations like Holland and the United States will have much to say as to the final terms of peace. There can be no lasting peace which leaves neutrality undefined and unprotected, which does not limit the scope and area of a conflict, or which does not prevent the visitation of war upon innocent nations.
It is a matter of uncommon interest to Holland that the posi- tions of the great neighboring powers with respect to her have apparently completely changed from what they were historically. Thus for centuries France was the most dangerous enemy of the Netherlands, and the famous Barriere in the southern Netherlands was directed against her possible sudden attack, just as the Triple Alliance between England, Holland and the Emperor during the eighteenth century was for the purpose of checking the ambitious designs of France. In this war, however, Holland and France have no differences, the Dutch having no fear from the French, while Germany and England, formerly Holland's protectors against France, have become menacing to Dutch interests. England, to be sure, has not always been friendly to the Dutch, as the three wars in the period between 1650 and 1674 clearly indicate, but otherwise Dutch and English interests were by no means mutually exclusive, but rather parallel, if not quite identical. The Dutch war for independence from Spain was greatly aided by England's fight in behalf of a common Protestantism, which required the un- divided support of both maritime powers in order to win against a recrudescent Catholicism, as personified in the house of Hapsburg. A century later, when William of Orange had become king of England, the alliance between England and Holland was formed, which, together with their common alliance with the emperor, was, as Professor Blok terms it, "a political and economical necessity."
At present, however, England has at least temporarily en- dangered the existence of Holland, although she claims of course that her measures are purely defensive, and necessary as counter- acting the offensive naval tactics of Germany. That England should desire a permanent foothold on -the continent, for example at the mouth of the Scheldt, is strongly to be doubted. Such a position would be precarious to hold, and it would ensure the lasting enmity of Holland as well as of Germany. It is equally improbable, how- ever, that Germany would care to lord it over the Dutch, or annex their country. The Germans know too well the history and char- acter of the Dutch, and have always been too friendly to them to doom them to national extinction. It is quite possible, however, that Germany and the Netherlands will be somewhat more closely
136 THE OPEN COURT.
related after the war than before, and that the Dutch will prefer the friendship and protection of powerful Germany rather than her possible distrust, and perhaps conquest at her hands. That the Dutch race, whether in Holland or Flanders, will draw nearer to- gether, is already certain. Of one other thing the world may be certain, that Holland wishes "heroic Belgium restored to the fulness of her material life and her political independence," as Premier Viviani has stated, "that it may be possible to reconstruct, on a basis of justice, a Europe finally regenerated."
THE NIGHT.
ENGLISH DIPLOMACY AND THE TRIPLE ENTENTE.i
A PHANTASMAGORIA IN ONE ACT BY BARRIE AMERICANUS NEUTRALIS
CHARACTERS
King Edward The Witch of Time
British Premier Pages
John, the King's valet
In Vision :
Kaiser Wilhelm II King George V
Czar of Russia Bismarck
President of France Officers, Soldiers, etc. Russian General
The King's dressing room in the palace. A dressing table with a large mirror on one side. John, the King's valet, places the several toilet utensils, brushes, powder-box, rouge, nail-clip and file in order on the dressing-tabl0, first using all the articles on himself.
John. When next these things are used it will be on a crowned king, but of course I have used them first on myself. I am very close to His Majesty, — I had almost said "His Royal Highness." So far my master has been Prince of Wales, but now he is King of England, and I must become accus- tomed to saying "Your Majesty." Of course I have risen with him. Henceforth I am "Valet to His Majesty King Edward the Seventh." It is time he was back from the
^ Sir James Matthew Barrie, the famous author of Peter Pan, has written a short dramatic poem in one act entitled "Der Tag" or The Tragic Man in which he characterizes the Kaiser as a lover of peace, but weak and under the influence of the Prussian Camarilla as represented in his minister who urges him on to war until he finally signs the fatal document and "Der Tag" breaks when war becomes unavoidable. However poetic Barrie's little play may be, it is utterly false in its premises; it misrepresents the Kaiser and his policy,
138 THE OPEN COURT.
coronation, I wonder how he feels. He looks funny enough. What would his Anglo-Saxon ancestors have said of their latest successor, this stumpy follower of the fair sex ! I do not blame him for his follies for he is king and can do as he pleases. And, after all, as the proverb says, no man is a hero to his valet, and I suppose it is true. But I only find fault with his bad taste. However, that is his business. It is he that has to take all the consequences. Here he comes now.
(John bows deeply. Enter the King with scepter and crown, dressed in royal ermine and purple, his train carried by pages. The pages kneel, then leave the room.)
King. At last ! At last ! I have been waiting long
For this momentous day which sees me crowned. John, come and take the scepter.
(John approaches.)
Tarry a little And leave these emblems but a moment longer Within my grasp. They mean so very much. Now leave me with my royal thoughts alone. And when I ring come back and help disrobe me.
(/oHN boivs and withdraws. The King poses before the mirror.)
King. There, at last! Behold, King Edward the Seventh! I am delighted to see myself in this garb. I am the seventh of my name. Seven is a holy number, a significant number. The Archbishop said it is a sacred number and all-compre- hensive. It is three plus four. "Three" means God and "four" the world. So "seven" means all, God and the world. It means completeness. There are seven wonders of the world ; there are the seven colors of the rainbow ; there are seven stars in the Pleiades constellation ; there are the seven sages ; there are seven gifts of the spirit ; — and there are seven Edwards ! Yes, seven kings of England of that name ; and I am the seventh.
I am King of England. That means I am the ruler of
and is obviously written to exonerate Great Britain from responsibility for the war. The formation of the Triple Entente was but a preparatory step for a war on Germany which it was hoped could be finished quickly by a crushing blow dealt suddenly by the French and Russians witliout involving England in the evils of a war. We submit herewith a poem describing the situation as it appears to the eyes of an impartial bystander and which the author hopes reflects the truth more accurately than Sir James Barrie's appealing sketch.
THE NIGHT.
139
Great Britain, and as ruler of Great Britain I rule the world. Britannia indeed rules the waves ; the British empire extends over every sea and into every clime. It is God's gift to Ok! England, and that is why this scepter and this golden crown upon my head mean so much. They mean dominion over the world.
For every country that is reached by ships
Pays tribute to the mistress of the seas,
And we lay down the law to all the nations.
Could I but peer into the distant future !
I fain would see the destiny of England,
Her dangers and her triumphs — triumphs yea!
For I am sure w^ are the chosen people
Whom God has blessed above all other nations
To rule the world and bear the white man's burden.
Dark powers of things to come, reveal to me,
The King of England, England's destiny!
{The Witch of Time, a tall old woman, rises from the ground. She is veiled in gray.)
King. Mysterious woman, let me see thy face ! (Witch unveils her face.)
Witch. Thou callest me. King Edward, and I come Out of the depth of that unfathomed night Which shrouds the distant time. Hear thou my words, That thou, the seventh of thy name, completest The day of England's greatness. Evening falls, The sun is setting on a glorious reign. The Anglo-Saxons' queens are great, but not Their kings, and the Victorian age is past. Thou wouldst begin a new, more manly era. But if thou imitatest not Prince Hal 'T will be no better, it will surely lead Old England down — down to her sure destruction.
King. Who art thou, dastardly old toothless woman. Hag of the night, curse of a wayward fate?
Witch. My name — that matters not. But heed thou well The warning which I come to bring to thee. God, the Omnipotent, long suffering, The God of history, has truly blessed
140 THE OPEN COURT.
The land whose guidance with this scepter is
Entrusted now to thee. But have thy statesmen
Used wisely and with justice their great power?
Does England merit the supremacy
Which has been hers? God's patience long endures,
But finally He calls all to account.
Art thou the man to rectify past wrongs
And lead Old England on to higher things?
King. What qualities are needed for the task? Witch. One, merely one alone, and it is manhood.
King. My predecessor was a woman. Witch. Yea !
King. I am a man ! Witch. Not every man has manhood.
King. What is thy meaning, hag? Speak plainly.
Witch. Well
I mean by manhood simple honesty.
King. If that be all, I do not fear the task
Of being King and governing the world.
I think that simple honesty is good.
Yea very good if it be used as mask
To hide the cunning of our statecraft's art.
What England needeth is diplomacy.
The Hindus did not lack in honesty,
But honesty is good for simpletons
Who would be duped. The Irish patriots
Possess enough of simple honesty.
But never have they independence gained.
The Chinese in their simple honesty
Thought to debar our opium from their ports.
The Boer insisted on his right to block
The British progress ; but his honesty
Assuredly was of no use to him.
Oh no, my good old witch, you are mistaken;-
On honesty Old England cannot prosper ;
Pure honesty is but for simpletons.
We need much more — we need diplomacy.
THE NIGHT, 141
Witch. It takes a hero to be truly honest.
King. I am no hero, but a mortal man
With human, all too human, faults. But then I'm keen of wit and can accomplish much By mere persuasion and by shrewd designs. I want to be prepared for my great task And wish to see what dangers are in store.
Witch. Great Britain has no friends ; she stands alone. Protected by the sea in isolation. She is surrovinded by great enemies. See here the French, your foes of centuries.
(In the background, on the right side, an arch appears, like the Arch of Triumph in Paris, with the tricolor Hying above it. Underneath, in dress suit, covered with a red, white and blue scarf, the President of France, surrounded by French officers in uniform. The President speaks to his generals.)
President. We hate John Bull. He is our meanest foe. The Germans have been bad enough ; they took Alsace-Lorraine when we, all unprepared, Still bore the yoke of the third Bonaparte ; But they at least beat us in open battle, While England robbed us by diplomacy. Messieurs, remember Suez and Fashoda. . Lesseps, a Frenchman, a French genius, Built that canal with our own capital. And now 'tis England's. 'Twas our caravan That first crossed Africa to far Fashoda ; 'Tis England now reaps all the benefit. Therefore beware ! A snake lurks in the grass Where'er a British diplomat has stepped. The Germans fight in fair and open battle ; The English rob us by diplomacy.
{The picture fades away.)
Witch. You have worse enemies and more than France.
Look at the Slav in his barbaric might ! .. V All over Asia see his agents swarm.
He spins intrigues which will be difficult For you to rend. Behold another danger —
(On the left the background opens and shozvs a typical Russian church entrance zvith a Russian General in fur coat and
142 THE OPEN COURT.
cap, with a knout in hand. At his right the Czar dressed in his imperial state; behind both, Russian soldiers and Cos- sacks. )
General. The present age belongs to Western Europe, To England and to Germany and France; But soon a new and brighter morn shall break ; Soon shall we reach in our triumphant march That ancient city of the Bosphorus, And thence to Suez, gateway to the East ; Then Persia, helpless, and Afghanistan Will fall before us ; and at last our arms Shall be supreme where now the Briton rules — In India, the treasury of the East. Let England rule the waves, we'll rule the land. And England will be helpless 'gainst our armies. Uncounted and invincible. Yea, sire, Be confident. Our victory is sure. Ere long all Asia shall be 'neath our sway, And then in our victorious march we'll turn Upon our western foe, the mighty Teuton. France clamors for revenge ; she'll be our friend. Then shall the Teuton, too, bow low his knee, And all the world be ours ; in every land Our faith shall spread, and holy Russia will Fulfil her destiny decreed by God.
(The Russian group disappears.)
King. All these our enemies? Have we no friends?
Witch. England has nowhere friends unless the Germans. They are your kin. But in these later days Distrust has grown among them, for they fear The ill designs of your diplomacy. Germania grows apace ; her sons aspire To noble things, and greatness they achieve. And honor and renown among all nations. Behold the guardian spirit of her people!
(The center of the background opens, and Bismarck appears with the young Kaiser William II.)
Kaiser. O venerable trusty counselor
Of my grandfather, let me learn from you How I can strengthen Germany's position
THE NIGHT. 143
That ne'er again she shall experience The agonies of conquest as of yore ; For I would foster in our Fatherland All sciences and arts and industries. I shall be proud if our posterity Will call me once the emperor of peace.
Bismarck. Remember, Si vis pacem para helium. We are surrounded, sire, by enemies. And by no other means is peace preserved Than by a constant readiness for war. The French are in alliance with the Russians And we must learn to fight the two at once. Since your grandfather beat the French, they've grown In afifluence and military power; And Russia is a giant, great and mighty, Yet, happily, but crude and barbarous. And lacking wisdom and experience.
Kaiser. War is a curse and ever fraught with danger. As long as possible I will preserve The benefits of peace, that so my people May prosper in all good and useful ways, In all things worthy of a noble race. And should the day of trial come, God grant That I may be the first to draw the sword. I will be worthy of my ancestors. I'll either wield my sword in victory Or I will die in open field with honor. We Germans fear but God, and nothing else,
{The picture in the center disappears.)
King. Not even Germany is our good friend.
She seems more dangerous than all the rest. In Germany there slumbers native strength, And if her growth continues as of late She will be England's must undaunted rival. The others are not rivals, they are foes. Foes may be changed by good diplomacy So as to be of service, not so rivals ; Therefore I fear but Germany alone. 'Tis true she helped us in our recent trouble ; But then she simply did oppose the French
144 THE OPEN COURT.
Lest they perchance became too strong. 'Tis true The Russians tried to take the Dardanelles That they from thence might threaten the canal, And that design, too, Bismarck did defeat. He favored us, but solely for the reason That Russia must not be allowed to grow. But now I have a plan ; and not in vain These phantom visions have appeared to me. Great Britain shall be ever, as to-day, Supreme and mistress of the seven seas. Old witch, I bid thee gratefully farewell.
Witch. I warn thee once again to act the man.
The fate of England hangs on thy decision.
(She disappears. The King rings the bell.)
King. Come, John, take these insignia.
{He hands John tJie scepter.)
Here, take off the crown ; it presses rather hard ; and even the robe is unwieldy ; it makes me perspire. Go now and bid the Premier come to me.
John. Your Majesty, his Excellency is waiting at the door.
King. Let him enter at once. {Eyiit John.) I hope the new Premier is to my heart. I know at least that he is like a fox, Cunning and smart and full of clever tricks.
(John shozvs in the Premier, bows and withdraws.)
Premier. I thought you might wish to see me, your Majesty; therefore I came uncalled.
King. Well considered and well done. I want to know what you think of the European situation.
Premier. Your noble mother has been very kind to Germany, very gracious and forbearing. She was so loving in her parental affection. The Kaiser is her grandson, and a grandmother is naturally fond of her grandchildren.
King. Yes, yes, I know, and she was proud of the young man, but though he is my nephew I must confess he does not act with
THE NIGHT. 145
becoming modesty. His utterances on more than one occa- sion have been provocative and threatening. He prates over- much of the mailed fist.
Premier. Yes, and he persists in increasing his navy.
King. His navy?
Premier. Indeed, Your Majesty. He has almost one-third as many ships now as England. His aggressiveness may become in- tolerable. I fear that I can say nothing better than the an- cient dictum in a modern version : Caetcrum censeo Ger- maniam esse delendam.
King. Do you know what we can do?
Premier. My plan is ready, sire.
King. Speak on.
Premier. In fact I must confess that I have taken the preliminary tentative steps.
King. Have you?
Premier. I have inquired in France and in Russia as to their plans. They will unite under all circumstances to crush Germany, and are but waiting for an opportunity. Germany is as in a vise between the two, and if we join them to ruin German trade and cut the Germans off from the rest of the world; resistance will be brief. France and Russia will be greatly encouraged to venture into a war against Germany if we give them the promise of our support and form a Triple Entente against her. There is no risk. And, Your Majesty, if Germany were extinguished to-morrow there is not an Englishman in the world who would not be the richer the day after. Neither France nor Russia is dangerous to us, for both are incapable of developing a strong navy. We have only one thing to fear and that is the growth of Ger- many.
King. Germania est delendal
(He stands in thought.) But our trade with Germany is not unimportant. Should we not suffer too in case of war?
Premier. Not much. Your Majesty. Our loss will be but tempo- rary and we shall quickly capture all the German trade. The
146 THE OPEN COURT.
war will be over as soon as the Russians and French meet in Berlin. But there is one point of importance: we must support the allies with our navy, otherwise they will not venture into the war. We may be confident that the allies will accomplish the bulk of the task without us, for the Russians can raise nine million troops and the French five or six. Fifteen million men will be too much even for Ger- many, and we can count also on a rebellion of the Social Democrats in that country. They are a strong and well organized party, almost one-third of the whole people ; they hate the Kaiser and will do anything to have him deposed or exiled or slain. Be assured, Germany cannot stand a war. But we must lend France and Russia our moral support. Possibly they may demand our army too.
King. We could send one hundred and fifty thousand men.
Premier. No doubt we should have to, and possibly more.
King. The time is not yet ripe, but we must prepare and make ready for war. The Triple Entente alone will be sufficient to assure victory, but we shall have, besides, the help of all the smaller powers. Belgium is sure to join us, and we may hope to gain the Dutch, the Danes, the Swedes, and the Norwegians too ; if they remain neutral they shall suffer for their anti-British attitude after the war. Italy and Austria are now allied with Germany, but we can induce at least the government at Rome to stand by us, for we could ruin the long and exposed coast of their peninsula. Our navy would bombard their cities from Genoa and Venice down to Messina with absolute impunity. They are at our mercy, so they would at least remain neutral ; and hence Germany will stand alone with Austria.
Premier. Yes, that is true. But let us not be overconfident. It is not likely that Holland and the northern countries will join us; they would remain neutral. However, we have created Belgium ; she owes us her existence, therefore she is our friend. She will open her formidable fortresses to us and allow us free passage for an attack on Charlemagne's ancient capital, Aix-la-Chapelle.
King. That is excellent, and England will thus be able to dispose of her most dangerous rival. I myself may not see the
THE NIGHT. 147
final triumph, but the time is surely coming and my son will inherit the fruitage of my work, the results of my diplomacy. We will run no risk.
Premier. We must put an end to Germany's naval power ; we must blockade her ports. Then we will capture her trade, and check her growing wealth and commerce. The French and the Russians will break her military power, her Prussianism and her ambition.
King. Is there no way to avoid a war?
Premier. None, Your Majesty! Germany has begun to rival us in manufactures, and she threatens to surpass us in com- merce. Then our supremacy will be lost. This must not be ! We must cripple her pretensions and dampen her inordinate ambition. We must engage her enemies, both Slav and Gall, and between her foes to east and west her doom is sure.
King. I'll have my ministers approach both France and Russia and arrange an entente against our common enemy. But then would you have the fatherland of our old Saxons di- vided between the Russians and the Celts?
Premier. We need waste no sentimentality on statecraft.
King. Maybe you are right.
Premier. I'll give to Celt and Slav his share, but Germany, though in a crippled shape, we leave for future conflicts with Russia.
King. Yea, sir. I know a better way. Germany shall have her freedom. Old England stands for liberty. German culture reached its best and highest development at the time of her , deepest political humiliation, but it is being ruined by mili- tarism. When we expel her tyrants we shall restore the glorious days when she was famous as the country of poets and thinkers. Schiller and Beethoven were greater than Bismarck and Moltke. We shall liberate the Germans from the Hohenzollerns. We shall restore the older, nobler and better Germany.
Premier. Your Majesty is the greatest diplomat the world has known. You will mend the mistakes that your royal mother, otherwise so noble, has committed. But remember we must act before it is too late. The Germans are warlike. They will gladly hail a war. Their officers in the army drink to
148 THE OPEN COURT.
the day when the struggle will begin ; they clink their glasses and shout Der Tag\
King {astonished). What! To the day, the Germans clink their glasses ? The day of war, of bloody, fierce decision? The peaceful Germans?
Premier. Yea, the peaceful Germans,
They think it is their right to build a navy And they do feel that we will check their growth. The peaceful Germans are most warlike people As soon as they believe they suffer wrong.
King. Oh, you are right. I fear the German danger, But think the day of war will be a night, A setting of the sun for either nation.
Premier. Your majesty! a night for Germany, A victory for us ! unfailing victory.
King. May be 't will be for both of us a night.
Well, let us hope the best. I trust you're right.
(Premier hotvs lozv and zuithdraws.)
King (musing). It is an old tradition of Great Britain To keep the nations on the continent In equal balance. But should one be stronger Than all the others, we must break her strength ; Therefore we will ally with France and Russia. The strongest one is Germany. 'Gainst her We must proceed. Our prospects promise much. I'll have my ministers make haste straightway. Confer with France and Russia as to terms And have the papers drawn up with dispatch. Would that the powers of destiny vouchsafed The secret which the future darkly bears. How will it be with England when I'm gone? I fain would know the fruitage of my plans.
(Background darkens and Witch reappears.)
Witch. King Edward, listen to my warning voice.
War will not help you. War in fact destroys Your own prosperity and power as much As of your enemies. Old England thrives
THE NIGHT. 149
In peace. Indeed her wars in recent times
Have worked her ill, and would you add one more,
A greater ill, to swell those of the past?
I see naught but bad omens in your plans,
Your sly designs and your diplomacy.
If you would keep Great Britain in the lead.
Let England's sons her battles fight with honor
In open field ; do not rely on others
Nor win by gold or base diplomacy.
King. 'Tis time to act before it be too late,
And we must use the greatest circumspection.
Witch. You fear that England falls behind and that The Germans grow in industry and power. This may be true. I recognize the danger. And here is the advice I have to give : Follow the German method ! Introduce Reform all round, in school, in church, in state. Have Englishmen progress and let them learn The cause of Germany's advance. Thus only Will England keep her old supremacy.
King. First must we overcome the German danger, Then we will use reform! We shall ally The world against the Kaiser. Let me see The German Emperor. — Lo ! there he rises.
{The German Kaiser rises in the middle of the background, first alone in his uniform of the guards.)
I grant that he is strong. He is courageous.
But how he'll wince with all these foes against him !
(,The Witch lifts her wand. On the right rise the Russians and on the left the French, with some English and Belgian troops. Among the English is King George V, and the Belgians are behind the walls of a fort.)
Kaiser {addressing King George F).
O cousin, what a dreadful game is this !
Do I see you among my enemies?
King Edward. The Kaiser is afraid. Stand firm. Don't waver.
King George. I am in honor bound to draw the sword And stand by my allies.
150 THE OPEN COURT.
King Edward. • Well done, my son !
(To the Witch.)
Our friends are strong and we prefer a war !
Witch. If thou preferest war, let war prevail.
(At this declaration all draw their swords against the Kaiser. The latter raises his sword and rises higher surrounded by German soldiers and cannon coming out of the ground.)
Kaiser. We Germans fear but God, and naught else in the world !
(At this point the first shots Hash from the German cannon with loud report and the Belgian fortifications fall. The Ger- man soldiers advance to the sound of German war music toward the French and Russians, who fall back, and the background of the stage is mainly covered with advancing Germans. King Edward sinks back in his chair. Night covers the scene and German national songs are heard.)
THE LIFE OF SOCRATES.
by william ellery leonard.
[conclusion.] IV.
Meantime there were those who began to look askance : this Socrates is not only erratic, but meddlesome ; not only meddlesome, but dangerous.
In 423, in the ninth year of the Peloponnesian war, and twenty- four years before his death, the son of Sophroniscus, now a man of forty-seven, saw himself ridiculed from the stage of the Dio- nysiac theater — the platform of Greece. The father of philosophy had fallen into the youthful and merciless hands of the greatest satirist and the greatest comic poet of the ancient world. Through the Clouds, Aristophanes, harking back, with that conservative spirit characteristic of satire to
"The men who fought at Marathon"
in fine ethical nature-verse touched with the love of Athens, attacks in the person of Socrates atheistic doctrines of physicists, immoral instruction of sophists, and incidentally all unprofitable studies. The Clouds are the aery speculations which Socrates here calls his deities, giving him
"Fallacious cunning and intelligence."
He has thrown over the old gods —
"What Zeus? — nay jest not— there is none,"
and he has ready his "rationalistic" explanation of thunder and rain. In Socrates's school (obviously an invention of the poet for dramatic convenience) they study how far fleas can leap, from which end of their bodies gnats sing, besides mysteries of astron-
152
THE OPEN COURT.
omy, grammar, and versification. The same Chaerephon who is said to have brought back the oracle's response is here with other disciples, and all duly revere the wondrous sage. What is that? — asks the visiting rustic, bewildered, as Socrates, on his first entrance on the stage, floats into the chamber in a basket. Autos, is the sol- emn response — autos, "himself." But old Strepsiades has not come up from the country to learn the natural sciences or to join the disciples — or even to clean out the Corinthian bugs that infest the couches of the crazy place. He wants practical instruction how to evade by sophistical reasonings the creditors whom his extravagant son — a type of the smart and smug young sport of Athens — has
THEATER AND PRECINCT OF DIONYSUS. From the Acropolis.
brought buzzing round his ears. Socrates, finding him hopelessly stupid, has him fetch, as a likelier pupil, the son, Phidippides him- self, and the old fellow soon "gets him back," as the sage had prom- ised, "a dexterous sophist" indeed, who beats his sire, old fogy that he is, in a quarrel touching the merits of Euripides (whom the satirist couples again with Socrates in the Frogs, of date 405), and then proves by argument that his conduct is just. The denouement is swift and complete : Strepsiades, his aged shanks still aching and his poor brain amuddle, in revenge sets fire to the school of Socrates and smokes out the whole cult. Thus, whatever hostility Aristoph- anes may show by the way, it is clear that he intends as primary
THE LIFE OF SOCRATES.
153
that charge which is inherent in the plot itself, where Socrates ap- pears as playing fast and loose with the logic of moral conduct and corrupting the civic honesty and fireside humility of the young men. This is the episode of 423 so far as it concerns biography.
The bearing of the brilliant burlesque on Socrates's thought and character we can consider, if need be, in later chapters.
What may have been the effect of the Clouds on Socrates we have no means of telling. He may well have been amused; it is
154 THE OPEN COURT.
possible that he at some time exchanged jests with the author over the wine as in Plato's Symposium. To the professional satir- ist, especially when he clothes his comments in the fantastic crea- tions of a tale and the remoter language of poetry, much has always been forgiven; and the personal jibe was the familiar custom in the old comedy. Moreover, though Aristophanes is certainly ex- pressing a serious conviction, the spirit of mirth is here regnant over bitterness and spite. It is the large laughter of Dryden, not the stinging sneer of Pope. Nor could Socrates have realized, look- ing forward, as he must have come to realize, looking back in his last days (Apology of Plato) that the fun his unique habits of life and thought furnished the comic poets (for Eupolis^ and others beside Aristophanes appropriated him) was sowing the seed from the mature plant of which the drops of hemlock would one day be distilled. This is not the only case on record, though the chief, where human laughter has ended in human tears. But assuredly Socrates left the comic poets to themselves : they worked their work, he his. About twenty years later, if we credit Xenophon (Memora- bilia, I, 2) Critias, still nursing an old grudge against his quondam teacher for an ugly vice publicly rebuked, got the despicable Thirty of whom he was the leader, to pass a law "against teaching the art of words," aimed against Socrates. Shortly afterward, a caustic comment on their wholesale slaughter of the first citizens to the effect that "it was a sorry cowherd who would kill off his own cattle" caused him to be summoned before Critias and his fellow-member Charicles, and reminded peremptorily of the edict. Xenophon represents Socrates imperturbably and archly asking questions on its exact meaning and scope and just what he may talk about anyway, the dialogue concluding:
Charicles : . . . . "But at the same time you had better have done with your shoemakers, carpenters, and coppersmiths. These must be pretty well trodden out at heel by this time, considering the circulation you have given them.". — Socrates: "And am I to hold away from their attendant topics also — the just, the holy, and the like?" — Charicles: "Most assuredly, and from cowherds in partic- ular ; or else see that you do not lessen the number of the herd your- self."
We have already observed Socrates disobeying the Thirty at the risk of his life.' Their hatred of him certainly had a deeper
^ Eupolis seems to have been particularly sharp : in one fragment a char- acter says, "I too hate this Socrates, the beggar of a twaddler" ; and another fragment hints at criminal conduct (atheism?) and advises burning him in the the cross-ways.
THE LIFE OF SOCRATES.
155
source than the spite of their leader ; they too worked their work,
he his.
But for all their bloodshed, the execution of Socrates was to be reserved for others. Democracy, in one more effort to vindicate
itself as the highest principle of government among mankind, has once more control in Athens, as we come to the one remaining date in Socrates's career that has been preserved for posterity.
We are there in the year 399 before Christ. We see little
156 THE OPEN COURT.
groups talking in the street. We see an ever shifting crowd at the portico before the office of the second archon. Now a scholar with book-roll in the folds of his mantle, now an artisan with saw and square, now a farmer with a basket of fruit, now a pair of young dandies, with staffs in their hands and rings on their fingers, cross over and, having edged near enough for a look at the parchment hung up on the wall, go their ways, some with the heartlessness of jest or of pitying commonplaces, some with the sorrow and in- dignation of true hearts.
We see, also, an old man of seventy years coming down the step. He, too, has had a look, but from the whimsical wrinkles on his cheek and brow we cannot make out what he thinks of it. A number of urchins follow after him hooting.
It seems that Meletus, instigated by Anytus and Lycon, has done this thing; and on the parchment which he but this morning affixed in the portico are the following words :
"indictment.
"Socrates is guilty of crime : Urst for not worshiping the gods zvhoin the city zvorships, but introducing nezv divinities of his own; next for corrupting the youth. Penalty: DEATH."
Tradition has it that Socrates had offended Anytus, a rich dealer in leather, by trying to dissuade him from bringing up his talented son in his father's profession, Anytus being, besides, a leading politician and one of the helpers of Thrasybulus in expelling Critias and the Thirty. But it would be a superficial reading of his- tory to see in Anytus more than the unenviable symbol or spokes- man of a hostility that had been gathering head for over a genera- tion, and the wonder is that it reserved its indictment so long. In no other city of the ancient world, as Grote was presumably the first to point out, would there have been that long toleration of such individual dissent of opinion, taste, and behavior. If Athens needed a Socrates, no less did a Socrates need an Athens ; nor has history a parallel to such reciprocal opportunity between a citizen and his city. The forces that finally destroyed Socrates should not blind us to this.
Those forces may be speedily set down. There were the popu- lar prejudices and vagrom misconceptions of the conservative or ignorant, gentlemen of the old school and nondescript proletariat, who saw in Socrates the father of the rascalities of Alcibiades and Critias, and the clever humbug of the stage of the Dionysiac theater.
THE LIFE OF SOCRATES. 157
There was the personal resentment of no small number of influential men (if we make shrewd use of the hints in our source-books), whose pretensions had been exploded by the Socratic wit or mocked by the Socratic irony ; and truth has ever been a nauseous drug in the belly of Sham, nor always a cure. Lycon the rhetorician, and Meletus, the poet, may have been among them. There was, again, the democratic reaction at the turn of the century, dangerous to Socrates not only as giving free play to the forces named, but, like any defeated party again in power, as peculiarly suspicious of moral or political heresy. Socrates at this time (if not, as seems likely, also in early years) exercised his ethical influence chiefly on young men ; and he was suspected of aristocratic sympathies, from the political character of some of his associates and from such not very dark sayings as that on the folly of electing ships'-pilots by lot.
Yet, so high his reputation for goodness and wisdom, so loyal and earnest his friends, that even now he might have escaped the worst, had it not been for his own lofty indifiference. He seems as one driven to furnish to the aftertimes the logical conclusion of such a life:
"Die wenigen, die von der Wahrheit was erkannt, Und thoricht genug ihr voiles Herz nicht wahrten, Dem Pobel ihr Gefiihl, ihr Schauen offenbarten. Hat man von je gekreuzigt und verbrannt."
The orator Lysias is said to have offered him a written speech, which he refused. His warning voice checked him, it is said, whenever he himself meditated what tactics to employ. And to a friend urging him to prepare a defense he is reported to have an- swered, "Do I not seem to have been preparing that my whole life long?" And so he continued "conversing and discussing everything rather than the pending suit," until sun rose on the day of the trial.
The dicasts are assembled, some five hundred citizen judges over thirty years of age, ultimately owing their positions merely to the chance of choice by lot — a supreme court of idlers, artisans, and everybodies. The accusers speak ; they reiterate the old charges : Men of Athens, behold the infidel, behold the corrupter of your sons. Socrates, rising, disdains the customary appeals for clemency, which even Pericles is said to have stooped to when Aspasia had been indicted before the dicastery for impiety: not merely because such whimpering is contrary to the laws — but because it is contrary to Socrates. He reviews his life. He is eloquent, uncompromising.
158
THE OPEN COURT.
unperturbed. The vote is taken on the question of guilt, and the verdict is against him by an encouragingly small majority. Socrates is now offered according to custom an opportunity to suggest his punishment. He has still a fair chance to live. His friends an- xiously await his reply — will he jest himself into eternity? — or will he preach, where he ought to beg? My punishment? — let it be a place in the prytaneum, the public dining hall, where you entertain at the expense of the state members of' the council, ambassadors, and at times those private citizens whom, as owing most to, you most delight to honor. Then, as if they perhaps wished an alterna- tive, he suggests a modest fine — a mina ; but "Plato, Crito, Critobulus
INTERIOR OF THE PARTHENON.
and Apollodorus, my friends here, bid me say thirty minae, and they will be the sureties." The second vote is taken, and eighty who had just before voted him innocent are added to that majority which now condemns him to death. It seems he is rising again: "The difficulty, my friends, is not to avoid death, but to avoid un- righteousness; for that runs faster than death...." As to the hereafter — perhaps. .. .if eternal sleep, good; if a journey to an- other place, good. . . . "What infinite delight would there be in con- versing with" the great dead.... "In another world they do not put a man to death for asking questions". . . ."Wherefore, O judges, be of good cheer about death, and know of a certainty, that no evil can befall a good man whether he be alive or dead". . . ."But
THE LIFE OF SOCRATES.
159
the hour of departure is at hand, and we go our ways — I to die, you to Hve ; but which of us unto the better afifair remains hid from all save the Divine (tw ©ew)."
Such are the hints from Plato's Apology, a document which, as I have indicated before, though it can no longer be accepted as stenography, must never lose in men's eyes its essential value as the most eminent disciple's testimony to the extraordinary char- acter of his master's conduct and speech on that impressive occa- sion— for here Plato is putting forth no one of his own peculiar
THE SO-CALLED PRISON OF SOCRATES. Part of an ancient dwelling.
doctrines, and here, if anywhere, piety would tip his pen once and again with the recollected word and cadence. His witness is borne out by the lesser disciple; and Xenophon says (Memorabilia, IV, 8) that the defense was "happy in its truthfulness, its freedom, its rectitude" ; and that "he bore the sentence of condemnation with infinite gentleness and manliness." There exists no tradition or assertion to the contrary; and Cicero (De Oratore, I, 54) long ago phrased what is likely to remain the permanent judgment of man- kind : Socrates ita in judicio capitis pro se ipse dixit, tit non siipplex
160
THE OPEN COURT.
aut reus, sed magister aut dominus videretur esse judicum — "he spoke not as suppliant or defendant but as master and lord of his judges."
He lay a month in prison ; for it was "the holy season of the mission to Delos." Phaedo explains the circumstance to Eche- crates at Phlius: "The stern of the ship which the Athenians send
to Delos happened to have been crowned on the day before he was tried. . . .the ship in which, according to Athenian tradition, Theseus went to Crete when he took with him the fourteen youths, and was the saviour of them and himself. And they are said to have vowed to Apollo at the time that, if they were saved, they would send a yearly mission to Delos. . . . Now. . . .the whole period of the voyage
THE LIFE OF SOCRATES. 161
is a holy season, during which the city is not allowed to be polluted by public executions . . . . " Let the irony of the situation be re- marked without bitterness or rhetoric : the imaginative but fatuous city punctiliously guarding against a formal and meaningless blas- phemy only to blaspheme against truth by slaying its prophet.
He spent these days in conversation with the Socratic circle. Means of escape to foreign parts seem to have been arranged for by his friends, which as all the generations know, he firmly declined, though men begin to doubt if his reasons as given in the Crito be not primarily Platonic. He would not disobey the laws, but more than that he would not and he could not, by a kind of cowardice which would have ever after thrown its shadow back upon seventy brave years of loyalty to himself, violate the logic of his being. "Socrates did well to die," said Shelley, speaking for all of us ; and martyrdom was not the least part of his mission to men.
The last day is the subject of the Phaedo. There is a sublime beauty -and justice in Plato's electing this solemn time for putting into the mouth of Socrates his own doctrines of immortality, though metempsychosis and the ideas were very far from the simple "per- haps" and the ethical trust of the more historic Socrates in the Apology. But, when the argument is over, the realism of art seems to draw close to that of poignant and immediate fact. Socrates has bathed to save trouble for those who would have to care for the corpse, and dismissed poor Xanthippe and the children "that they might not misbehave" at the crisis. The jailer appears — "Be not angry with m,e. . . .you know my errand." Then, bursting into tears, he turns away and goes out, as the condemned answers his good wishes and farewells. The sun sets behind the hill-tops, visible possibly from the prison windows. "Raising the cup to his lips, quite readily and cheerfully he drinks off the poison." The friends weep and cry out ; it is Socrates, with the venom working through the stiffening limbs up to the old heart, who comforts and consoles them. Now he has lain down and covered himself over. Perhaps the sobs are hushed in the strain of the ultimate suspense. He throws back the sheet from his face : "Crito, I owe a cock to Ascle- pius; will you remember to pay the debt?" These, adds Plato, were his last words, the paganism of which so distressed his ad- mirers in the early Christian church, who failed to see their play- ful and pathetic gratitude to the god of health who has now — cured him of all earthly ills.
Were the people of the planet, wearied with erecting statues of the admirals and cavaliers, to set up in some city, more en-
162 THE OPEN COURT.
lightened than the rest, a memorial to this hero of their ancestral stock, they should cause to be carved upon one oblong of the base, beside honest sayings of the sage's own upon the other three: "No one within the memory of men ever hawed his head more beauti- fully to Death." The judgment was true when Xenophon wrote it down ; and it were to-day far more true than most that is graven in bronze or stone, though since then countless millions have met Death where he came, at the stake, on the scaffold, in the mountains, in the highway, in the house ; some with curses, some with exalta- tion, some with terror, and many with calm courage and noble peace.
CONYBEARE ON 'THE HISTORICAL CHRIST."
BY WILLIAM BENJAMIN SMITH.
INASMUCH as Conybeare's "searching- criticism," so far at least as it touches my work (and it would be officious as well as im- pertinent for me to mingle in his fray with others), concerns itself mainly with details, rarely considering the case on its general merits, the order of the following comments would seem to be prescribed by the order of strictures presented in his book. The Historical Christ.
1. Conybeare holds that if Jesus never lived, neither did Solon, nor Epimenides, nor Pythagoras, nor especially Apollonius of Tyana. By what token? The argument is not presented clearly. One can- not infer from the Greek worthies to Jesus, unless there be close parallelism ; that there is really any such, who will seriously affirm ? By far the strongest example, on which Conybeare seems to rest his case, is that of the Tyanean. But is it a parallel? Certainly and absolutely. No. How much romance may lie in Philostratus's so-called ''Life of Apollonius," we need not here discuss, nor the numerous apparent echoes of the Gospels, but all efforts to show that Apollonius is a parallel to Jesus are idle, now as in the days of Hierocles. Let us consider some specimens.
Page 6 of The Historical Christ bewilders greatly. One won- ders where to find such data, — certainly not in Philostratus. Exag- geration marks nearly every sentence. E.g., "He had a god Pro- teus for his father." But Philostratus says, "his father bore the same name" (Apollonius), adding that a "phantom of an Egyptian demon came to his mother while pregnant," whom she undismayed asked what she would bear, and who replied, "Me." She asked, "But who are you"? and he answered "Proteus." That is all, and is interpreted by Philostratus as presaging the versatility of his hero. Philostratus subjoins that the natives say that Apollonius was a child (paida) of Zeus, but "he calls himself son of Apollonius." It is not even hinted but positively excluded that he "was born of
164 THE OPEN COURT.
a virgin." The meteoric portents "in the heavens" reduce to this: "the natives say that just as he was born a thunderbolt, seeming to be going to fall on the earth, was carried up in the ether and disappeared on high" — just an ordinary fancy after the fact and symbolizing future distinction, as interpreted by Philostratus.
He "appeared after death to an incredulous believer." Verily, but in a dream only! The youth "fell asleep," after praying for nine months that "Apollonius would clear up the doctrine about the soul," then "starting up from rudely broken slumber and streaming with perspiration" he cried, "I believe thee." His companions asking what was the matter, he said, "See ye not Apollonius the sage, that he is present with us, hearkening to our discourse and reciting wondrous words about the soul" ? They though see nothing. The youth says, "He seems to come to converse with me alone concerning what I believed not," and then quotes to them what Apollonius said. All a mere dream, such as any one might have of a revered teacher, and told as a dream, of course with some rhetorical embellishment.
He "ascended into heaven bodily." Philostratus gives three stories of his death : first, that he came to his end in Ephesus, tended by two handmaids ; second, that it was in Lindus, where he entered into the temple of Athena and disappeared within ; third, that it was still more wonderful, in Crete, where he came to the temple of Dictynna late at night ; the guardian dogs, though fierce, fawned upon him, but the guardian men seized and bound him as a wizard and robber ; at midnight he loosed his bonds, and calling witnesses ran to the temple doors, which opened wide and then closed after receiving him, while rang out a voice of maidens singing, "Ascend from earth, ascend to heaven, ascend." The story is told by Phi- lostratus merely as a story, not as a fact ; its symbolic meaning is manifest.
This same note of exaggeration sounds through Conybeare's translation of Philostratus, and almost converts it into a tendence- writing. Thus he says, "Apollonius heals a demoniac boy," but Apollonius had naught to do with it ; the actor is "one of the sages," the Indian sages ; Apollonius is not mentioned in the chap- ter (XXXVni, Bk. HI). "The sage" means the Indian sage, who moreover is not even said to heal the boy, but merely to address a threatening letter to the "ghost,"^ — nothing is said of the result. Conybeare regularly speaks of Apollonius as "the sage," but not
^ ei8o3\ov, idol; observe that "the demon," possessing the boy, is also called idol, the term regularly used to denote the gods of pagandom.
CONYBEARE ON "tHE HISTORICAL CHRIST." 165
Philostratus, who says regularly "the man" (of Tyana). Another "miracle of healing a lame man" turns out to be setting a dislocated hip ; "but their hands having massaged the hip, upright of gait the youth went." Conybeare says "immediately," but not Philostratus. "And another man had had his eyes put out, and he went away having recovered the sight of both of them." Philostratus says, "And one having been flowing as to his eyes (ophthalmo erryekos) went away all having in them light." The reference seems to be to bleared, rheumy,^ weak or watery eyes cured by the manipulations of the Indian sages. "Another had his hand paralyzed but left their presence in full possession of the limb." Philostratus says "another being weak in his hand, went away strong" (egkrates, empowered), — as well he might with no miracle. "Abaris who traveled on a broom- stick through the air. . . .is rivaled in his enterprise by Apollonius" ; but Philostratus merely says that "to some occurred the report of Abaris of old, and that he [Apollonius] might launch into some- thing similar, but he [Apollonius] without even declaring his mind to Damis set sail with him for Achaia."
Examples of this tendency could be multiplied almost ad libitum. Undoubtedly Philostratus means to cast a glamour of the extraordinary over his hero (though apparently avoiding any unequivocal affirmation of the miraculous) : he tells many traveler's tales and sets down all sorts of popular stories, mainly of super- normal insight, foresight, and second sight. Such legends gather round many or all notable characters, and many not notable. "Heaven lies about us in our infancy," and our neighbor the rest of the time. No one would think of denying the historicity of Jesus, merely because miraculous legends had gathered about him. In Ecce Deus (pp. 78-79) I have distinctly disclaimed any such notion. The point is that there must be independent indications of historicity. The legends themselves are not evidence. If the in- dependent evidences be present, the legends make no difference,
^ The verb rheo, to flow, whence rheum and derivatives, was regularly used to denote such conditions, as well as its derivatives rhyas and others. To interpret the words "having been flowing at the eyes" to mean "who had had his eyes put out" is like interpreting the phrase "who had been bleeding at the lungs" to mean "who had had his lungs cut out." Besides, the position of the heal- ing between two others, one of a dislocated joint, the other of a feeble hand, shows clearly that it belongs to a series of "minor surgeries." — In Book I, C. X, Philostratus tells of a man who "supplicates the god [Asklepios] to give him the one of his eyes that had flowed out (exerryckota)," for his wife had "knocked out one of his eyes, having stabbed in her brooch-pins." Observe that the historian says just what he means: the stab had ruptured the eye, the humors had literally flowed out; hence the prefix ex, which is not used in the present case, where the eyes seem to have been affected with chronic rheum, but did not flow out.
166 THE OPEN COURT.
but in their absence the legends cannot attest. Here is the distinc- tion with the difference. No such independent witness has been presented for "the historical Jesus."
On the contrary, the whole body of evidence thus far adduced bears strongly against the historical character. When Petrie would prove Apollonius historical, what does he do? "Recognizing how easily the marvelous is accredited to any striking character, we place our faith more on the internal evidence of congruity." The "historical detail" is for Petrie the "basis for our acceptance of the authenticity of the narrative." He then sets forth six pages of details and "in all this mass of allusions to contemporary history and details of journeys there is not a single misplacement or con- fusion" (Personal Religion in Egypt, pp. 39-45). This is respect- able reasoning. Will any one hold that it can be applied to the Gospels ? Even in a single detail ? Surely not. The cases are polar opposites. The stories in Philostratus do not "read exactly like chapters out of the Gospels." A statement could hardly be more misleading ; they read neither exactly nor at all like Gospel chapters. In fact, it may be strongly recommended to the unbiased inquirer to read Philostratus, if he would form a judgment. The whole atmosphere is so totally foreign to the evangelic that he may be trusted to perceive that if one is history the other is not. Philos- tratus shows us clearly enough how a wonder-loving age would write about a remarkable revivalist, an impressive personality, an overmastering man, who lived in waxing fame and reverence for nearly one hundred years, whose disciples followed him from shore to shore and honored him almost as a god ("he came near being deemed both demoniac and divine," Phil., I, 2). The contrast with the case of Jesus is too broad to state in a few words, and it points directly away from the theory of "the historical Christ."
2. "Jesus, our authors affirm, was an astral myth." But Smith is one of "our authors" and, as Conybeare knows, affirms nothing of the kind. At best, Conybeare's statement is one-third false.
3. "In these earliest documents [Mark] Jesus is presented quite naturally as the son of Joseph and his wife Mary, and we learn quite incidentally the n?mes of his brothers and sisters." Who by reading this is prepared for the fact that Mark never mentions Joseph, who is named only in Matt. i. and ii., Luke i., ii., iii., (acknowledged late fictions), iv. 22, and John i. 45, vi. 42, also late? Moreover, Mark in- troduces Jesus zvithout any family reference and only in two pas- sages refers to any "brethren," in one of which Jesus declares his mother and brethren to be spiritual ; the other passage, in which
CONYBEARE ON "tHE HISTORICAL CHRIST." 167
they are named, seems to be a mere philologic play on the stem Nasar, present both in the Syriac for carpenter and in Nasarene. This whole subject of "Jesus's brethren" I have discussed in The Open Court (1912, pp. 744-755), showing that there lies in the term no argument for any historicity of Jesus.
4. "In Matthew v. Jesus went up into a mountain," p. 20. Matthew there says "the mountain," a very different thing, showing that he is not speaking of a physical mount but of "the mount" of legislative authority, as the king ascends the throne. What more unnatural than for a man to ascend a physical mountain when the multitudes came to be taught?
5. W. B. Smith is named among those that "insist on the esoterism and secrecy of the cryptic society which in Jerusalem harbored the cult," p. 31. W. B. Smith does naught of the kind, has never said aught of any such society in Jerusalem.
6. Conybeare quotes (p. 32) as a "naive declaration" a state- ment on page 74 of Ecce Dens ; but he fails to hint the reasons there assigned. This misleads the reader, who naturally thinks of naivete as unsupported by reasons.
7. "W. B. Smith's hypothesis of a God Joshua" (p. 35). Cony- beare knows I have made no such hypothesis, nor ever used such phrase. He is seeking to identify my views with Mr. Robertson's, though knowing quite well they are widely distinct.
8. Conybeare says the phrase "the things concerning Jesus" "refers as the context requires to the history and passion of Jesus of Galilee." But Mr. Conybeare's peers, as Loisy and Soltau, admit that it can not, but must refer to a "religious doctrine," as I have contended.
9. "The name Jesus, according to him, means. . . .Healer." How can Conybeare write thus? Where have I said that Jesus means Healer? In Ecce Dens (p. 17) it is stated that Jesus was "prac- tically identical with Jeshua, now understood by most to mean strictly Jah-help, but easily confounded with a similar form J'shu'ah, meaning deliverance, Saviour," also "it suggested healing to the Greek, "its meaning, which was felt to be Saviour" (p. 16). Simi- larly, mDervorchristliche Jesus (p. 38), where it is said explicitly that "Jesus in the Gospels means naught else than Saviour." Zahn (whom even Conybeare must respect) sets forth (Evangelium des Matthdus, 75-76) clearly that "in assigning a reason for the choice of the name (Jesus) the notion of saving, salvation, saviour is em- ployed." I have never said that Jesus properly meant healer, but only that in the consciousness of the early Christian in the Gospels
168 THE OPEN COURT.
and other old Christian literature it signified Saviour, it was under- stood to mean Saviour. Such was not the scientific but the popular etymology. This is correct, in spite of Conybeare, as admitted by Zahn and others. Conybeare adds, "note, in passing, that this ety- mology is wholly false, and rests on the authority of a writer so late, ignorant, and superstitious as Epiphanius." Brave words these, but not discreet. Conybeare seems to forget that Justin Martyr, nearly 200 years before Epiphanius, and held in high repute by historicists, says (Ap. I, 33, C), "But Jesus, a name in the Hebrew speech, in the Greek language means Soter" (Saviour) ; also (Ap. II, 6), "Jesus has both the name and significance of man and Saviour"; also (Iren. II, 34, 3), "But his Greek name [corre- sponding to his Hebrew name Jesus], which is Soter, that is Saviour."^ Still earlier Philo (in De Nom. Mut.) translates Jesus more accurately by Lord's Salvation (lesous de, soteria kyriou) which is tantamount to Saviour. Enough, the statements of Cony- beare are quite reckless. — It may be added that Usener (for whom Dr. Conybeare may entertain some respect) derives the divine name Jasos, almost indistinguishable from Jesus, from iasthai, to heal (Gotternamen, p. 156). It seems incredible, then, that the Greeks should not have understood Jesus to mean Healer, Saviour.
10. "It would appear, then, that Apollos was perfectly ac- quainted with the personal history of Jesus." For this important thesis, where does Conybeare offer the faintest semblance of proof? The word "then" suggests that reasons have been given ; but what are even hinted?
' It is indeed plain from countless passages in Irenasus that Jeshu, Jesus, Soter, Salvator were all practically identical in the early Gnostic-Christian consciousness. Yea, the case is even clearer yet. In Iren. IV, 30 is a notable passage : "His name is glorified among Gentiles. But what other name is glorified among Gentiles than our Lord's, through which is glorified the Father and is glorified man? Both because His own Son's it is, and by Him was made man. His own he calls it. Even as, if a king himself paints his own son's portrait, he justly calls it his own portrait, for two reasons, both because it is his own son's and because he himself made it: So also Jesus Christ's name, which through all the world is glorified in the church, the Father con- fesses to be His own, both because it is His Son's and because He Himself writing it gave it unto salvation of men. Since therefore the Son's name is the Father's own name, etc." What is this wondrous name common to Father and Son? Let Harvey answer: "Irenseus refers, I imagine, to the name Jesus — JHVH Jeshu'ah — Jehovah, Salvation." Indeed, there is no doubt ; says the Apostle, "and vouchsafed him the name that is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee may bow etc." (Phil. ii. 9f.) Now it is Jehovah alone that declares, "Unto me every knee shall bow etc." (Is. xiv, 23), and only the Tetragram JHVH is "the name above every name." In some way then the names Jesus and Jehovah must be united in one. How? In the oft recurring phrase quoted by Harvey (II, 200). Remember that Jeshu (\^'>) is the regular form of the name Jesus in the later Hebrew, as in b. Sanh. lof^, lof'; Irenaeus alludes to it as consisting of two and a half letters (11.34,4).
CONYBEARE ON "THE HISTORICAL CHRIST." 169
11. The rest of page 38 is mere wild assertion. The passage in Luke xxiv. 19 I have treated sufficiently in Der vorchristliche Jesus, p. 4; repetition is unnecessary.
12. Conybeare thinks it "verges on absurdity" to refer "the things concerning the Jesus" (Mark v. 27) to "the doctrine about Jesus." He gives no reason, merely affirming the hemorrhagic woman was hysterical, and that "in the annals of faith-healing such cures are common." On the contrary, I hold that "the doctrine about the Jesus" is meant, that the healing is purely symbolic like all other healings, that the cure of the unclean world by faith is set forth. The hysterical interpretation of Conybeare does not seem worthy of a mature mind. The Gnostics saw clearly enough that this woman typified something, and they identified her with the twelfth Aeon. For this Irenaeus charges them with inconsis- tency, perhaps correctly, but he does not defend the historicity of the incident ; indeed he seems inclined to think there might be some symbolic interpretation, for he says: "If indeed eleven Aeons were said to have been afifected with incurable passion, but the twelfth was cured, it would be plausible to say the woman was a type of them" (11,34, 1).
13. Conybeare's discussion of the Paris papyrus is simply con- fident assertion, no proof is attempted. He tells us Dieterich says it can not be older than the second century B. C, but he forgets to add that Dieterich ascribes it definitely to the Essenes who are the "pure men" in question. "But who are the pure men?. . . .Let us say it at once: they are Essenes or Therapeutae" (Dieterich's Abraxas, p. 143). Here then among these Essenes, somewhere near the beginning of our era, we find Jesus invoked in exorcism as "the God of the Hebrews." Deissmann can find no way to evade this but by supposing the passage to be interpolated ; but the con- text forbids this conjecture, the passage is necessary to the struc- ture. This testimony to the pre-Christian Jesus remains unshaken.
14. Conybeare's discussion of the epithet Nazorean is too slight for consideration ; its force lies in such phrases as "Smith jumps to the conclusion that the Christians were identical with the sect of Nazorsei mentioned in Epiphanius as going back to an age before Christ." If the reader will refer to the original discussion (in Der vorchristliche Jesus, pp. 54-69), he will see how cautiously inch by inch this jump was efifected. That discussion cannot be repeated here, nor the many elaborate articles since written on the subject. Suffice' it that the theses of Der vorchristliche Jesus have not been shaken and are coming to clearer and more general recog-
170 THE OPEN COURT.
nition. Read the recent monographs of Abbott and Burrage to see how "unhasting, unresting" the opinion of critics is turning into position.
In a footnote Conybeare seems to concede guardedly the pre- Christianity of the Nazoraei (which, in fact, it is wildness to deny: Epiphanius may be many undesirable things, but he was surely a diligent inquirer ; his witness may be late, but it is in ample measure ; he would never have borne it and tried vainly to evade it, had it not been essentially correct. To quote overstrong words, which Conybeare at least will recognize, written about this very matter, "the Christians were great liars, but they never lied against them- selves"). If so, then farewell to the derivation of Nazarean from Nazareth, and farewell to Christianity as an emanation from a man Jesus, for, says Conybeare, "the Nazoraei of Epiphanius were a Christian sect." The Matthaean derivation, now generally sur- rendered, is simply part of the scheme of historization everywhere and increasingly present in the later portions of the New Testament. When Conybeare speaks of "Smith's contention that he was a myth and a mere symbol of a God Joshua," he is confounding Smith with some other — such is his prejudice against accuracy.
15. Similarly on page 45, where he declares Smith insists "that the miraculous tradition of Jesus's birth was coeval with the earliest Christianity," we have another of Conybeare's pious imagi- nations. I have uniformly spoken of both the Matthean and the Lucan "miraculous tradition" as late, very late — perhaps not earlier than the second century.
16. Similarly, p. 58, Conybeare says of an "ancient solar or other worship of a babe Joshua, son of Miriam," that "it looms large
in the imagination of Professor W. B. Smith." As I have
never anywhere alluded to any such "ancient worship," it would seem that Conybeare is at best a diviner of sub-conscious imagi- nations.
17. Apparently Conybeare urges no arguments against the sym- bolic interpretation of the miracles, especially of demon-expulsion. He merely complains that Smith's exposition "is barely consonant with the thesis of his friends," which may be irritating but does not touch the logical situation, since Smith is not accountable for any thesis but his own. But on page 67 he quotes half of page 57 from Ecce Deus, in which it is argued that the accepted view of Jesus as establishing a new religion by sending out disciples to heal a few lunatics is quite absurd, and it is asked, "Is that the way the sublimest of teachers would found the new and true religion?"
CONYBEARE ON "tHE HISTORICAL CHRIST." 171
Conybeare comments : "In the last sentence our author nods and lapses into the historical mood ; for how can one talk of a mythical Joshua being a teacher and founding a new religion — of his sending forth the apostles and disciples?" Doubtless Smith sometimes "nods," as do his betters ; but he rarely snores so visibly as Cony- beare in this comment. A child can see that in speaking of Jesus as "sending forth the apostles" I was not stating my own view, but the accepted view, which I regard as ludicrous. Conybeare would not allow Euclid to use a reductio ad ahsiirdum. On page 68 Cony- beare exaggerates immeasurably the prevalence of exorcism among Jews and pagans, and finds it strange that the Protochristians should use symbolic language about demons, which might be misunder- stood. But such symbolic language was very common ; it was a staple of discourse (as is clearly set forth in EcceDeus,t.g. on page 116) ; it was certainly used about diseases quite as frequently as about exorcism ; it harmonizes every way with all the historical con- ditions, with the temper of the time and clime. Mueller long ago (1861) interpreted the miracles of Apollonius as symbolic, and Kayser (whose text Conybeare uses) adopts the interpretation. The fact is, the symbolism is often so transparent as to be quite unmistakable. After seeing the solution of a riddle or rebus, you cannot help seeing it.
How scandalous is the exaggeration of Conybeare may be clearly seen from two points of view. First, the expulsion of demons appears in the New Testament as a most remarkable ex- hibition of supernatural power, as a distinctive sign of the divine might of the "new teaching" or teacher. But if "exorcists, Jewish and pagan, were driving out demons of madness and disease at every street corner," then where was the wonder? If everybody was doing it. what impression would it have made, what attention have excited? It seems strange also that classic literature should be practically devoid of allusion to such a dominant element of daily life, stranger that the revered Baur should write: "The belief in possession by demons, at least in the form prevailing among the Jews, cannot, it seems, be found in Greek and Roman authors of the time of Philostratus, even as to the Greek religion also the notion of evil demons remained almost wholly foreign" {Apollonius und Christiis, 143). Still more, how amazing that Acts gives no example of such a demon-expulsion, not even in xvi. 18, and that early Christian literature can furnish no example. But, secondly, consider Apollonius, the master magician and wonder-worker. Surely he must have surpassed all others in demon-expulsion. How-
172 THE OPEN COURT.
ever, Philostratus can tell of only one such expulsion, or at most two or three, and these are so transparently mere figures of speech, as Muller and Kayser have already perceived and shown, that they can not be counted at all. Here then the chief of all thaumaturges of the day lives and works well-nigh a hundred years without expelling a demon ! Or even suppose he did expel half a dozen, one every fifteen years, while others were driving them out "at every street corner" ! Would not such a prince of miracle-mongers be straightway discharged for " inefficiency"? It is clear as day that Conybeare's statements are the merest caricatures, not worth the least consideration.
18. Page 69. Conybeare complains again of want of harmony between "Mr. Robertson and Mr. Drews" and "Prof. W. B. Smith." Well, what of it?
19. Page 74. Conybeare rejects Smith's "thesis that the Chris- tian religion originated as a monotheist propaganda," as "an exag- geration, for it was at first a Messianic movement or impulse among Jews etc." He offers no proof, nor says what Jews, whether in Judea or in the Dispersion. The steadily accumulating evidence points to the Dispersion and away from Judea and shows more and more clearly that the Christian was one form (itself having a dozen sub-forms) of the great monotheistic movement in the Judeo- Greco-Roman world, especially on the eastern coast of the Medi- terranean, proclaimed by zealous apostles from shore to shore, and in a more or less definite type of discourse, such as Norden exhibits on pages 6, 7 of his Agnostos Theos (1913) under the impressive title of "the Jewish-Christian Ground-Motive." The zeal and en- ergy of this propaganda are attested in Matthew xxiii. 15, "Ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte." How reconcile with this incontestable fact of the wide-spread monotheistic preaching and mission (Missionspredigt, Norden) the notion that Christianity emanated from a personal focus, a "carpenter of Nazareth"? Im- possible. "A Messianic movement" could be and was a militant monotheism. It was God under the aspect of Heavenly Messiah, of preexistent Son-of-Man, who was the "Coming One" (Habba). now to be revealed to the coming world. To see in this movement a semi-political semi-racial agitation of a few Galilean crackbrains is to view history through an inverted telescope. The notion finds no sanction in any well-ascertained facts. As far back as our knowledge extends the goal of the movement is the monotheization of the world.
20. Page 79, Conybeare speaks of "the naif figure of Jesus, as
CONYBEARE ON "tHE HISTORICAL CHRIST." 173
presented in the Synoptic Gospels." Herewith compare the chapter on "The Characterization of Jesus" in Christianity Old and New, by Conybeare's sober sympathizer, Bacon of Yale, who seems to admit not one trace of naivete in the thoroughly "conventionalized figure." It is worth adding that Salvatore Minocchi, the leader of Italian and a leader of European modernists, in // Panteon (1914), a study of the "Origins of Christianity," while still championing at great length "the historical Jesus," admits that for Mark even "he is almost throughout a supernatural being," and that the two capital Pauline testimonies (1 Cor. xi. 23-25 and xv. 2>-7) are interpolations : "such passages were assuredly never written by Paul" — all of which has already been proved in Ecce Deus. Thus leaf by leaf the roses fall. If one would set forth great things by small, Minocchi's abandonment of these three strongholds might be likened to the simultaneous surrender of Belfort, Verdun, and Warsaw.
21. Pp. 84-85, Conybeare sets forth his view of Mark's Gospel, protesting against the notion that Mark represents Jesus as divine, insisting that it is John that deifies. But all this is unsupported assertion ; Conybeare never grapples nor comes to close quarters. He passes by the minute discussion in Ecce Deus, with a mere "we rub our eyes." Indeed, a hopeful symptom, but Bacon does better ; he not only rubs but also opens. While of course not accepting the thesis of Ecce Deus, he goes far in that direction. He tells us that the "distinctive and characteristic trait (of Jesus) in Mark is authority," he might have said "divine power," for this "authority" is instantly recognized and obeyed as supreme. From beginning to end "Mark presents his central figure as in heroic proportions. The 'mighty works' of Jesus occupy the foreground." " 'Christ' or 'Son of God,' rather than 'Lord,' is Mark's distinctive messianic title," "but this paragraph [xii. 35-37, where Ps. ex. 1 is quoted to show that Christ is 'Lord,' throned in heaven] fully expresses his own Christology, and sounds the keynote for his own conception of Christ. Jesus, from the time of his adoption by the Spirit and the heavenly Voice [i. e., from the first of Mark] became a super- human authority. He already sits at the right hand of God." All this is correct, only still too mildly drawn. Jesus is in Mark plainly an over-earthly being from the very start ; the Gospel opens without hint of earthly origin of its hero. As to the title "Son-of-God," who does not know that it has been used for hundreds of years to designate more or less clearly a certain emanation or person of the supreme God, hardly inferior in dignity or power to that God him-
174 THE OPEN COURT.
self? All attempts to minimize the meaning of the term are abor- tive.
As to John, of course it was never said and never meant that he reduced the power or majesty of the Logos, but only that he strove to humanize and sentimentalize, that he sought to ascribe distinctly human traits, and to add a so-called affective hue to his representations, as when he says "Jesus wept." This attempted humanization and sentimentalization runs through the Fourth Gos- pel and is plain to open eyes.
22. Page 88, Conybeare admits that Christianity was "a. protest against idolatry, a crusade for monotheism," "when we pass outside the Gospels." If so, then it must be our own fault that we do not find it in the Gospels themselves. Christianity can hardly be one thing outside and another thing inside the Gospels. The truth is that, as the Apostle puts it, "our Gospel is veiled." The whole heal- ing and saving activity of Jesus in the Gospels is a "veiled" state- ment of the progress of the early Jesus-cult in redeeming humanity from the sin (of idolatry and its endless train of vices). According to the apocalyptist (Rev. xiv. 7), the "eternal Gospel" proclaimed to all the earth is monotheism pure and simple: "Fear God and give him glory."
From such dreary details one is glad to emerge more into the open in reviewing the next chapter (III) on the "Argument from Silence." Conybeare's discussion must of course contain much that is correct, yet it is vitiated at vital points by rash assertions and tendentious constructions. He tells us that Matthew and Luke "Re- arrange, modify and omit," but adds that their handling of the Marcan and non-Marcan documents is "inexplicable on the hypoth- esis that they considered them to be mere romances." But who- ever said they considered them "mere romances" ? On the contrary, they revered these documents as much more than historical, as deep religious poems and doctrinal treatises. But the fact that they did "re-arrange, modify, and omit" (nay more, unquestionably, invent wholesale, and contradict each other at will, as Conybeare will not deny) shows clearly as possible that they did not regard these documents as authoritative or binding in any historic sense. So much we may uncompromisingly maintain.
Luke's foreword strongly confirms our thesis. True, he says naught about "Osiris dramas" nor yet again about "the facts about Jesus," a fine phrase of Conybeare's own invention ; his language is suspiciously vague, certainly not what this modern historicist would have used. For Conybeare speaks thrice of Jesus in six
CONYBEARE ON "tHE HISTORICAL CHRIST." 175
short lines ; Luke does not once use the word in his prologue. Luke says naught about any history, he speaks of "setting in order matters fully accredited among us." The word peplerophoremenon is rendered vollgeglauhten by the German master Holtzmann. If you render it "fulfilled" or "fully established," the meaning is not altered ; the reference is not to a biography but to a body of teaching, for these "matters" (pragmata) "delivered us those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants" — of what? of bio- graphic details? Nay, but "of the word" (the doctrine) ; and why does Luke undertake this task? That Theophilus (God-loved) may know the surety of — what? of a set of biographic incidents? Nay, but "of the doctrines (logon) about which thou wast taught orally." Sane commentators — who is saner than Holtzmann? — recognize that it is here a question of doctrine : "The closing words give the whole account a doctrinal purpose," and he renders logon as above, by Lehre (doctrine).
Herewith then tumbles this whole chapter HI of The Histor- ical Christ. It makes no diflference whether there were thirteen or three hundred "such documents" ; their primitive object was not history but Logos, doctrine, which they set forth in various ways, by sayings, by parables, by edifying arguments, by symbolic stories. The idea of Luke, or any other evangelist, as crowding his pages with every form of historic impossibility (as Conybeare cannot deny) and at the same time gravely concerned and deprecating that Theophilus should get any historically inexact "information about Jesus," is one of the most amusing conceits in literature. Does not every one know that his chapters I and II are elaborate inven- tions contradicting Matthew's similar invention at every point? Does not even Loisy recognize the prevalence of symbolism in Luke, whom he calls "the great symbolist"? Yet this patent doc- trinaire appears to Conybeare as a painstaking documentary biog- rapher! We might have expected the like from Ramsay.
This chapter and the whole argument from "independent docu- ments," upon which Conybeare has put forth his most earnest efiforts, are disabled by two immedicable maladies : the documents, whether two or a hundred, are not independent, and they are not biographic. They proceed from schools of religious and theosophic thought, their authors are quite unknown, no one knows how many hands have been at work on each ; there is not one sentence that may not have undergone revision after revision ; the marks of ex- tensive and intensive redaction, of insertion and excision, of every form of overworking, are still visible on nearly every page, and
176 THE OPEN COURT.
to speak of such "documents," no part of which we certainly possess in any primitive form, as independent witnesses is to use words apart from their meaning. These schools were indeed not all alike, they differed among themselves like the colors of the spectrum, widely, more widely, and less widely ; this fact complicates the gen- eral phenomenon but does not change its nature. Conybeare admits (p. 103) that John's Gospel "is half-docetic." Yet it certainly strives to humanize and sentimentalize beyond the Synoptics ; it is especially concerned to exhibit Jesus as "the Logos become flesh." On its face this object is historization, to show forth a divinity in the guise of flesh ; the very reverse of Conybeare's view that it was to exalt a pure human being into a God.
Conybeare refers (p. 104) to Ignatius's treatment of Docetism. "I too have not been idle," but have discussed the matter through pp. 351-364 of The Open Court (June, 1913), with the unequivocal result that the witness of Ignatius is directly and decisively against the historicists, a conclusion reached quite independently by no less a scholar than Salomon Reinach. If Conybeare will uphold his po- sition he must answer these arguments. It is not hard to show that Ignatius represents a grozving dogma of the humanity of Jesus, that he strives mightily to defend it against an earlier view, and that he has no historic data at command to support it, though he might have been alive at the supposed crucifixion, though he might have known the apostles themselves, and though he lived but a short distance from Galilee. Docetism was not primitive Chris- tianity, it was itself a secondary growth, and yet Jerome attests that it flourished "while the apostles were still alive on earth, while the blood of Christ was still fresh in Judea." Conybeare's inter- pretation of Docetism is quite indefensible.
Page 111, he entirely misinterprets the hostility of the Judean Jew to the Jesus-cult. It was the universalism of the "new doc- trine" (Mark i. 27), its breaking down the wall between Jew and Greek, its abolition of the Jewish prerogative, that was naturally enough born in the Dispersion but proved less and less acceptable to the Jews of Judea, where naturally nationalism was far more intense. Hence the Jezvs of Jerusalem are said to have crucified the Jesus, that is, they rejected the Jesus-cult with scorn and dis- dain. The Judean stumbled, was "offended," at the notion of the Saviour-God of the "new doctrine," the Jesus-cult ; hence the plain words attributed to Jesus: "Blessed is he whosoever shall not be offended in me" (Matt. xi. 6). The whole story of the Passion is an additament to the primitive Gospels ; it is not in O, as admitted
CONYBEARE ON "tHE HISTORICAL CHRIST." 177
even by Hariiack. All the historic facts in the case fall into order from this point of view.
In the following pages of Conybeare's work much seems wisely written, especially his frank recognition of the "brotherhood" of "monotheists of the Jewish type" "all about the Mediterranean," who were "something besides" in that "they accepted a gospel. . . . about a Lord Jesus Christ" — all of which I might have written myself, had mine been the pen of such a ready writer. It was pondering just such facts that forced me to the general conception of multifocal Protochristianity as first set forth in Der vorchristliche Jesus. How any one can interpret such facts as implying the em- anation of Protochristianity from a Galilean carpenter crucified a few years before, we shall understand when we learn how an ir- regular polygon grows out of a point.
In passing it is worth while to note that "Van Manen never for a moment questioned the historical reality of Jesus." Certainly not, for the dark overtook him midway ; "the season of figs was not yet." After opposing Loman's view of "Pauline Questions" strenuously for years, with singular nobility and plasticity of mind Van Manen reversed his spear and drove it directly against the dogma he had so valiantly defended. Had his health been spared a few years longer, he might have written not only the third article in the Hibberf on "Did Paul write Romans?" but have accepted the radical view as thoroughly as now does his learned compatriot Hol- land.
Page 123, Conybeare assumes (without any proof) everything in dispute, declaring that "all these documents are independent of one another in style and contents, yet they all have a common in- terest— namely, the memory of a historical man Jesus." I traverse this pleading in toto. It is not true that any of these documents has for its "interest" "the memory of a historical man Jesus." The "common interest" in question is not a "memory" at all, neither of an historical nor of an unhistorical man Jesus. The "common inter- est" is in a dogma or body of dogmas, a "doctrine about the Jesus," a Religionsanschauung , as Soltau, reviewing Der vorchristliche Jesus, admits. It is notorious that no one can learn from Acts and Epistles anything abotit Jesus that has biographic content, it is all of dogmatic import. The primitive preaching of Peter and Paul tells us nothing about the life of Jesus, but primarily only that God had "raised up Jesus," where "raised up" (anestesen) is used in its regular (Old Testament and Septuagint) sense of "set up," "estab- lish," "install," "inaugurate," the allusion being to the "new doc-
178 THE OPEN COURT.
trine," the Hellenized "monotheistic Jesus-cult" (Deissmann). Afterwards, as the process of historizing went on apace, this primi- tive proclamation was expanded and pictorialized into a story of "resurrection from the dead," where "raised up" has been dislocated in its reference. All this is set forth in the article "Anastasis" in Der vorchristUche Jesus, and in substance it is now powerfully con- firmed in Bousset's Kyrios Christos.
The story of the crucifixion is a similar development, a pic- torial representation or symbolization of the rejection of that same Jesus-cult by the Jews of Jerusalem. The proof of this is already elaborated in an essay written in 1913 and perhaps soon to appear in print. But whether these particular interpretations be quite cor- rect is not the real point, which is that the "documents" in question were not primarily, in their original form, historical, nor was their "common interest" historical, but dogmatic and doctrinal ; as is clear from the fact that they tell us nothing of strictly biographic or historic scope, nothing that is not thus dogmatic and doctrinal, and from the further fact that they freely and everywhere mould the quasi-historical features to suit the doctrine under consideration.
Of course, no one denies the presence of these quasi-historical features, they are obvious ; but perhaps in every instance they may be shown to be thus tendentious, to be free inventions, having generally symbolic but often purely poetic or dramatic function. As time went on, these fictions multiplied beyond measure, taking such romantic forms as in the first two chapters of Matthew and of Luke, and gradually all feeling for the original sense of the Gos- pel was lost, even as feeling for the primal meaning of the Greek myths was lost in bald Euhemerism. "It is curious to observe the treatment which the Greek myths met with at the hands of for- eigners. The Oriental mind, quite unable to appreciate poetry of such a character, stripped the legends bare of all that beautified them, and then treated them, thus vulgarized, as matters of simple history." Mutatis mutandis, these words of Rawlinson fit exactly the case of Christianity, whose deplorable but natural and inevi- table vulgarization has lasted to this day and in its totality consti- tutes the saddest sight that earth has ever shown the sun.
Page 124, Conybeare thinks it incredible that one tradition (much more six or seven) "should allegorize the myth of a Saviour- God as the career of a man, and that man a Galilean teacher, in whose humanity the church believed from the first." Verily ! But in the final clause he quietly assumes the very thing to be proved, the very thing emphatically denied. The "church" did not believe
CONYBEARE ON "tHE HISTORICAL CHRIST." 179
in the humanity of Jesus "from the first." No scintilla of proof can Conybeare show forth. The earliest evidences exhibit a "new doctrine" of a Saviour-God, of "Jesus raised up" by God as a Pro-Jehovah. The traces of gradual humanization are surprisingly abundant.; numerous and manifest^ too, are the interpolations made in the interest of the dogma of the humanity (as I have set forth in an elaborate essay soon to be published). But even in the second century the humanity was far from universally accepted. The Teaching, venerable and authoritative, knows nothing of it ; neither does the learned Epistle of James ; neither do other New Testament Scriptures ; the most popular Shepherd of Hermas, issuing from and addressed to the inmost Roman Christian consciousness and es- teemed as "inspired" by the highest authorities, knows nothing what- ever of any earthly life of Jesus, whose name it never mentions. All these matters are only mentioned here but are treated at length in essays practically ready for the press.
Passing to "the Epistles of Paul," Conybeare apposes on page 126 two passages from Romans (i. 29-32) and I. Clement XXXV, 5, 6, to show that Clement used Paul. But the apposition is vain and belongs to a stage of literary criticism already overcome. The matter is treated in Der vorchristUche Jesus, not in eight short lines but in four long pages (170-173), and it is clearly shown that it is reckless to speak of Clement's quoting from Paul, since it is blind- ness not to recognize in Romans itself a quotation or at least a reminiscence of a Jewish Vidui or Confession for Day of Atone- ment, an acrostic of twenty-two sins, one for each letter of the Hebrew alphabet. To think of Paul's actually originating such a list in the midst of a heated argument is far more absurd than for a lawyer to extemporize a sonnet in a passionate appeal to a jury. Says T. Rendel Harris in his masterly monograph The Teaching of the Apostles (82iTf.) : "There is ground for a suspicion that the Vidui of the Day of Atonement, the Catalogue of Vices in the Teaching, and the catalogue in the first chapter of Romans, are all derived from a lost alphabetical catalogue of sins." He might have added the catalogue in 2 Tim. iii. 2-5. Neither Clement nor Paul is originating, but both are quoting from common or related orig- inals. Moreover the whole passage in Rom. i. 18-32, is on its face no original part of a letter to Romans ("Rome" in verse 7 is now admitted by Harnack and Zahn to be interpolated ; the whole is no letter but a theological treatise, a precipitate of generations of de- bate), but is a part of the general "missionary preaching" of the monotheistic propaganda, a bitter denunciation of idolatry, itself
180 THE OPEN COURT.
much revised, and has nothing whatever to do v^^ith any man Jesus or with the Gospel story.
"The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers," to which Conybeare refers p. 126, is certainly an extremely valuable com- pendium, for which we cannot be too grateful, but what is its logical worth may be inferred from its classifying the parallelism between Romans and Clement as "A a", to indicate the very highest degree of probability, whereas we have just seen there is no proba- bility worth mention.
Conybeare's statement of the argument of my Sceculi silentium has so little relation to the facts in the case as to make any dis- cussion well-nigh impossible. The causes (named on p. 130) of dis- appearance of Christian literature, alteration of creeds and rivalry of schools of thought, did indeed operate, but not against the canon- ical writings. To paraphrase the words already quoted, "The ortho- dox Christians were great destroyers, but they did not destroy their own." But this is not the worst of it. Conybeare seems to have mis- taken quite the airg\iv[iQ.nioiSc£cnli silentium. It is not there a question about writings that have disappeared, granted that they are countless ; the question is about the works that have not disappeared, but abide with us even to-day. It is the century of such still extant works that is considered, and this century is found to be silent. It seems hardly possible that Conybeare could have read Scrculi silentium with any care. On pages 189-194 of Der vorchristliche Jesus the matter is clearly presented. The point is this. We have still with us copious works of that century, Clement, Polycarp, Barnabas, Ignatius, Hermas, Justin Martyr. These writers had frequent and urgent need for just such matter as lay at hand in the Epistle to Romans and other Paulines. They delighted in quotation, it was the staple of their argument ; they seek diligently and with tears for authoritative utterances. If then they knew anything of our Romans, why did they pass it by in silence for a century? Such is the argu- ment in ScBculi silentium, nor can it be answered by exclamation points and by caricature.
Like all other weapons of thought, the argument from silence must be used with discretion, but everywhere both in criticism and in daily life it is used and is indispensable. Hardly a book of criticism can you open but you find it employed somewhere. Thus, Munro (Iliad. I, XXVII) and Petrie. That in the case in hand it is used properly, and that it wounds mortally the prevalent notion about Romans, is plain to see in the intense anxiety of traditionalists to show that somewhere the silence has been broken ; to every syl-
CONYBEARE ON "tHE HISTORICAL CHRIST." 181
lable of the Fathers they apply the most sensitive microphone of criticism, if haply here or there they may detect the faintest echo from the Epistle.
Page 131 reveals a precious germ of truth, declaring that the supreme and exclusive interest of the Paulines, as well as the Paul (he might' have added the Peter) of Acts, is "in the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus," their author "manifests every- where the same aloofness from the earthly life and teaching of Jesus." Nobly and bravely said, with enviable clearness and pre- cision. But what other Epistle or (New Testament) writer after the Gospels shows any less aloofness from the early career of Jesus? Is not the supreme and exclusive interest of all "in the crucifixion, death, and resurrection ?" And are not these all dogmatic moments ? Is it not their doctrinal import with which the writers are ex- clusively concerned ? One trivial amendment may be admitted. As the Paul of Acts never uses the word "crucify," and alludes to the crucifixion only in a section (xiii. 27-31) apparently inserted later in his speech, it cannot be said that he felt supreme interest in the crucifixion. Neither does Peter, who indeed says twice "whom ye crucified" (Acts ii. 36; iv. 10), and in iii. 14; v. 30; viii. 35 also alludes to the tragedy. But all of these notices seem to be secondary additions, and to form no part of the primitive preaching, which turned about the Anastasis, the uplifting, the establishment of Jesus as heavenly Son-of-Man, a pro-Jehovah and Lord Christ, quite in- dependently of any resuscitation or any death. All this has been set forth in Der vorchristliche Jesus (pp. 71-106), also with some natural variation in Bousset's Kyrios Christos (pp. 1-92). The primitive notion is the Anastasis (Installation, Erhohimg — Bousset), from which the revival, death, crucifixion etc. have all been con- structed backward, as in a dream. The first genuinely historic interest that we find is in the birth-stories of Matthew and Luke, admittedly late inventions.
The testimonies to a human birth of Jesus that Conybeare thinks to find in the Paulines are one and all mare's-nests. It seems strange he should cite such a phrase as "born of David's seed ac- cording to flesh" (Rom. i. 2), embedded in a concretion of dogmas impossible as a genuine address to Romans, and even there so ob- viously interpolated that our translators reached forward to the natural sequent (verse 4") and boldly wrote "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord," thereby impliedly recognizing the omitted words as inserted, though afterwards introducing them; while our revisers help themselves out by interpolating "even."
182 THE OPEN COURT.
All such examples, and there are many, of dogmatic phrases disturbing the context labor under a strong antecedent suspicion of interpolation ; many have been recognized as such by the sagest critics, who never dreamed of the present radical theory of anhis- toricity. It is practically certain that many such are intrusions into the text, and it may very well be that all are. Undoubtedly the canonic scriptures have been revised and re-revised at many points in dogmatic interest ; this none will deny. According to the chief methodological maxim, the law of parsimony, Occam's Razor, we must apply this admitted principle wherever we can, and intro- duce no other principle of explanation until absolutely necessary. Hence the historicist can prove nothing by any number of doctrinal phrases, easily detachable from their context and intelligible as interpolations, which fall out as soon as the text is shaken in dis- cussion.
He must find some document wherein the human birth etc. are threads running through the whole web, which cannot be isolated nor understood as insertions. This he has not done, this he has not attempted to do, and in default hereof he is logically impotent.
The principal Pauline passages such as 1 Cor. xv. 3 ff. ; ix. 1 ; xi. 23 ff. ; x. 16, 17, have all been shown in Ecce Dens and else- where to bear witness not for but rather against the historical hypothesis. (Compare Guignebert, Le Prohleme de Jesus, for notable concessions.) Until these arguments are answered it is vain merely to point pathetically to these passages.
But on p. 134 Conybeare quotes 2 Cor. xii. 11, 'Tn nothing came I behind the very chief est apostles," and similar Pauline boasts. This seems suicidal. For admittedly Paul's Christianity, his seeing Jesus, the Lord, was a psychic process, a matter of intellect and not of sense experience ; when he puts it in line with the apostles', what clearer indication could there be that their experience also was a matter of intellectual perception, of doctrinal comprehension, of spiritual intuition? Conybeare assumes everything, as so often, when he quietly identifies apostle with "personal follower of Jesus." P)Ut decidedly they were not "personal followers of the Jesus," the man of historic fancy. They were missionaries of "the doctrine about the Jesus," of the Judeo-Grecian monotheism, sent out from here and there all round the Mediterranean, the proclaimers now in the closet now on the housetops, as wisdom dictated, of the great Missions- predigt, set forth in type-form by Norden.
Naturally many of these twelve or seventy (both symbolic numbers) might have borne official relations to the early propa-
CONYBEARE ON "tHE HISTORICAL CHRIST." 183
ganda, of which they were proud. Paul would seem to have been more or less independent, a marked individuahst. It is doubtful whether the relations between the official apostles and the self-con- stituted apostle were ever so strained as would appear in a few passages in the Paulines ; the Baurian antithesis did good service in its day, but its usefulness is over: " 'Tis but a tent where takes his noonday rest" the critic that is addressed for the final and in- creasing truth. Apollos was another such apostle, also an indi- vidualist. For the more or less official apostles we have preserved in the Teaching a kind of manual of preaching and practice. It is a mere pious imagination on page 138 that "the older apostles prided themselves on their personal intercourse with Jesus" ; it is not im- plied in 2 Cor. v. 12, nor elsewhere, save in the riotous fancy of the historicist. Page 138, Conybeare italicizes 2 Cor. v, 16, "even though we have known Christ after the flesh," as one of "some texts which imply that Paul, if he did not actually see Jesus walking about on this earth, yet imply that he might have done so" (sic). But the highest exegetical authorities both conservative and liberal hold that it implies no such thing. Thus Heinrici (p. 172), citing Klop- per, amends the elder view of Meyer and interprets thus: "Yea, if we considered even Christ himself fleshwise, if we misunderstood him and his kingdom totally" (as does the modern historicist), and (p. 174), "for known by no means presupposes having seen, but refers to a discursive cognition of the specific dignity of Christ." Notice also with what contempt Holsten dismisses such views as Conybeare's (Ev. d. Paul. u. d. Petr., p. 432). The passage still remains obscure and questionable, but it affords no help to his- toricism.
On page 146 is mooted the question of the "brethren of the Lord." This matter has been discussed at much length elsewhere (in The Open Court) in my article on the "Kindred of Jesus and the Babylon of Revelation" and in my review of Loofs's "What is the Truth about Jesus?" According to the Theologischer Jahres- bericht my position is there "skilfully defended against an able assailant," Kampmeier. Here be it only observed that had flesh- and-blood brother been meant, the phrase would have been "brother of Jesus" and not "brother of the Lord." Remember that Lord (Kyrios) is the Greek for Jehovah, also that Hegesippus quoted by Eusebius (H. E., II, 23, 4-18) gives such an account of this James as makes it clear that he was "brother of the Lord" by virtue of his prodigious piety, and ridiculous to suppose that blood- kinship is meant ; also that Origen expressly says he was "brother
184 THE OPEN COURT.
of the Lord, not so much because of consanguinity or coeducation as because of his ethics and his doctrine" (C Cels., I, 47) ; also that in the Apostolic Constitutions, Book V, we read, "He that is condemned for the name of the Lord God is an holy martyr, a brother of the Lord." Now this James is said in Hegesippus's account to have suffered martyrdom. So, then, all the facts in the case are understood easily and naturally on the supposition that the reference is to religious pre-eminence, and on no other.
Page 146, Conybeare refers to the fact that in Mark iii. 31-35, it is implied of "his brethren" that they did not believe in him, and makes much of this apparent contradiction, as Kampmeier before him. But the solution is simple. There is no reason why "his brethren" should not be used by different writers or even by the same writer at different times under different conditions, in widely different senses. All of us do the like habitually. It was very natural in quasi-historic symbolism to speak of the Jews of Jeru- salem as "his brethren" and as rejecting him, because the Jesus-cult was certainly Jewish in origin, though born in the Dispersion. Doubtless the Jews laid special claims to the idea, they were the protagonists of monotheism ; although half-pagan "the monotheistic Jesus-cult" (Deissmann) was still theirs. And yet in the main they rejected it. Similarly Jerome speaks of the Church at Jerusalem as the mother of Jesus. Such figurative language was everywhere current in the Orient. The inconsistency then is only a seeming one. But even if the explanation were not so near-lying, the fact itself of the double sense would be incontestable ; for in the same Gospel "brethren" certainly means "disciples," believers (at least so Mag- dalene understood it, John xx. 17-18), and just as certainly means not disciples but unbelievers (John vii. 5, "neither did his brethren believe in him"). Here, then, is no need to stumble, unless one positively prefers.
Page 148, Conybeare alleges that "blood relationship is always conveyed in the Paulines as in the rest of the New Testament" (and the Christian World of July 2 rolls the statement like a de- licious morsel under the tongue), "when the person whose brother it is is named." How is it possible to characterize such a statement? The word in question {adelphos, brother) is used in the New Testament about 330 times, thus : Gospels 88, Acts 56, Paulines 132, the rest 54. In the Paulines it is used 130 times certainly in the figurative sense of religious or racial brother, the only two contested cases are those under review "brother of the Lord" (Gal. i. 19), "brethren of the Lord" (1 Cor. ix. 5). Conybeare has used "al-
CONYBEARE ON "tHE HISTORICAL CHRIST." 185
ways" in the sense of never ! Similarly in Acts it is used 54 times in the figurative sense, twice only in the literal sense ("Joseph was made known to his brethren," Acts. vii. 13; "James the brother of John," xii. 2). The Gospel usage is about equally divided. In the rest, the sense is figurative 51 times, perhaps literal thrice, twice of Cain's brother, 1 John iii. 12, and of Jude brother of James, Jude 1.
Page 148, "Smith withholds from his readers the fact that Jerome regarded James the brother of Jesus as his first cousin." He also withheld countless other facts just as irrelevant. Jerome's correct notion, agreeing with Origen's, of the meaning of the appel- lation "brother of the Lord," is not vitiated by his "Encratite rubbish" about first cousins and perpetual virginity of Mary; just as Conybeare's excellent investigations are but little impaired by The Historical Christ.
Page 152, Conybeare cites Col. ii. 14, concerning which it is sufficient to refer to Ecce Deus, pp. 88, 89, 197-201. Such phrases as are collated on pages 152, 153 have already been adequately noted.
Passing now into the broader champaign of "External Evi- dence" Conybeare complains that I have mangled Origen in quoting contra Cels., I, 47. The "mangling" consists solely in indicating by dots the omission of irrelevant matter, as must often be done if books laden with citations are not to become unwieldy. Why quote 17 lines when only five are to the point? But on page 159 Cony- beare controverts my statement that "the passage is still found in some Josephus manuscripts," and he calls Niese to witness that there are no such manuscripts. "By his neesings a light doth shine." "To-day the Captain is sober." I had incautiously accepted the statement of Schiirer, the almost inerrant: "This passage occurs in some of our manuscripts of Josephus and ought therefore cer- tainly to be regarded as a Christian interpolation which has been excluded from our common text" ( Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes, II, 18), unheeding the words of Origen's Benedictine editors: "to- day though, in Josephus-codices naught similar is found," and di- rectly against my own wont, to verify every statement to the full extent of library and other resources at command.
But by this merciless massacre of a straggling metic, who richly deserved his fate, has Conybeare disturbed the march of the army? By no means. The peccant sentence was an obiter dictum unessential to the general argument. Conybeare, following Burkitt, who apparently follows the Benedictines, regards Origen's thrice- made averment as an error of Origen's commonplace book confusing
186 THE OPEN COURT.
Ananus's murder of James with Ananus's own murder. Be that as it may — here is no room to test it. In any case the Josephine passage has passed quite beyond the stage of discussion represented by Conybeare and Burkitt. Harnack followed by Barnes has come to the defense of its Josephinity in a widely read article in the Internationale Monatsschrift, June, 1913, 1037-1068, which has rejoiced the hearts of historicists almost as much as his earlier reaction in the Chronologie tickled such as read no further than the Vorrede. But Harnack's structure has been pulverized by his own colleague E. Norden and scattered to the winds in an elaborate memoir in the Neue Jahrhiicher fiir das klassische A., G. u. d. L., XXXI, pp. 637-666, after having already been generally rejected by his compatriots.
There has also just appeared in Preuschen's Zeitschrift an equally elaborate, if less rigorously reasoned, monograph by P. Corssen on "Die Zeugnisse des Tacitus und Pseudo-Josephus iiber Christus," 1914, pp. 114-140. All of the Burkitt-Harnack-Barnes contentions are most easily refuted (as I have shown fully in an- other connection),* and the Josephine witness comes ever clearer to view as in every word one of the most manifest and unmistakable of all interpolations.
Page 160, Conybeare alludes to my contention that the Tacitus passage is spurious, but his misrepresentation of my argument is almost too gross for correction. Evidently he presumes that his readers will never see Ecce Dens, pp. 238-265, otherwise he surely would never have printed his own pages. Here it is enough, since Conybeare is quite beyond the pale of discussion, to quote one sen- tence from an able and honest though unsympathetic reviewer of Ecce Deus, Windisch, in the Theol. Rundschau: "The spuriousness of the Christ-passages in Josephus is strikingly demonstrated ; fully as worthy of attention appear to me his arguments concerning Tacitus."
Page 161, Conybeare states, "It is practically certain that Clement writing about A. D. 95, refers to it" (Nero's persecution). Discreet traditionalists maintain no such thing. The sufferings re- ferred to by Clement are ascribed to jealousy, he does not "record that a vast multitude perished in connection with the martyrdom of Peter and Paul," and there is not the remotest allusion to Nero. The passage is obscure and probably corrupt ; the "Danaids and Dirkae" are bracketed by Lightfoot. Apparently the reference is to the whole course of human history, for he begins his list of the
* The Monist, October, 1914, pp. 618-634.
CONYBEARE ON "tHE HISTORICAL CHRIST." 187
disasters wrought "by envy and jealousy" with Cain and Abel, brings it on down gradually to Peter and Paul, and then says that "to these men (i. e., all the preceding examples, not merely Peter and Paul) of holy conversation was gathered a vast multitude of the elect" ; on its face this gathering together was from the endless stretches of time from which he had taken so many examples. To see in it a reference to a Neronian persecution is to fly in the face of common sense. Compare the magnificent eleventh chapter of Hebrews (especially verses 32-40), of which Clement's chapters IV-VI may be regarded as a feeble echo. The "great multitude" corresponds to the "so great a cloud of witnesses" in Heb. xiii. 1.
As to "the cult of Augustus Caesar" by the college of Augustals, as compared with the Plinian notice of hymns sung to Christ "as to God," little need be said, since Conybeare himself admits "one might perhaps hesitate about its implications," "if this letter were the sole record etc." Now it is precisely the existence of any "record" attesting the "purely human reality of the Christ or Jesus," that is called in question, and that historicists find it impossible to prove, — admittedly impossible, for such as Schweitzer and Noll content themselves with mere "probability." The case of Augustus is not nearly parallel, since there independent proof abounds.
Page 176, Conybeare says that in the "basal documents Mark and Q" "Jesus first comes on the scene as the humble son of Joseph and Mary to repent of his sins etc." What must be said of such writing? Is it reckless or merely "daring, bold, and venturous"? Compare it with the facts, that Q as restored by Harnack contains no mention of any baptism of Jesus, that its first reference to Jesus declares he "was upborne into the wilderness by the Spirit to be tempted by the Devil, etc.," all of which is strictly supernatural; also that Mark says naught about Jesus as "humble son of Joseph and Mary," naught about his confessing sins but merely says "he came and was baptized, and immediately upon his going up from the water he saw the heavens rent asunder etc." The whole story is merely figurative, as Usener has clearly shown, and by no means testifies to historic fact. "Originally John the Baptist had borne only prophetic witness of Jesus. That satisfied neither those who had Jesus walk as God on earth nor those for whom Jesus was born as man" (Das Weihnachtsfest, 70). Hence the many varying accounts of the baptism, all of them dogmatic symbolic fictions. As complete corrective of these pages of Conybeare, it is enough to refer to a hostile work both honest and learned, to Bousset's Kyrios Christos (1913), where the practical immediacy of the worship of
188 THE OPEN COURT.
Jesus as "a heavenly preexistent spiritual being descended from above" is strongly stressed, as well as the fact that the Gentile mission "was in flood before the conversion of Paul, whom it upbore on its current" (p. 92), and that the term Lord (Kyrios, Greek for Jehovah) was in use among the Gentiles, so far as we can see, from the very first. Conybeare here seems to represent a point of view already overcome.
Like may be said of his remarks on page 187 against the notion that the primitive propaganda was a militant monotheism. At this point he should read Norden's Agnostos Theos, as well as Acts, more carefully. A single passage may be quoted:
"I. THE SERMON ON MARS' HILL AS TYPE OF MISSIONARY
PREACHING.
I. THE JEWISH-CHRISTIAN GROUND-MOTIVE.
" 'Knowledge of God' was a concept known even to the religion of the prophets, but in the Christian religion it became central ; in the rivalry of the Hellenic religions, including the Jewish-Christian, 'gnosis of God' was so to speak the password with which the mis- sionaries plied their propaganda : he who brought the true gnosis — and only one could be the true — guaranteed to the believers the true God-worship also, for knowledge and worship (eusebia) were in these circles one" (p. 3). Compare herewith a modest footnote in £cc^ Deus (p. 64) : "Hence the genuine Protochristian terms 'gnosis' and 'gnostic' Knowledge of God and worship of God are the two polestars of the Protochristian heavens." As soon as one sees that the repentance of the New Testament is turning from the sin (of idolatry and its concomitants), that faith towards God is the ac- ceptance of monotheism (or "the monotheistic Jesus-cult"), and that the Kingdom of God is the community of his worshipers, of the world converted to monotheism, all the difficulties that trouble our author dissolve and vanish — and all of these things are treated in Ecce Deus. The cure for Conybeare's "Art of Criticism" would seem to be a little more science of criticism.
Page 190, complaint is made that Jesus is taken as human and historical where use is made of the phrase "he said unto them." By no means ! We use the Old Testament phrase, "Thus saith Jehovah," with no suspicion that Jehovah is or was human or ever uttered such words. The ancient religionist regularly accredited his own ideas and expressions to his God. On the following pages, 191-198, Conybeare asks many questions, all of which answer them-
CONYBEARE ON "tHE HISTORICAL CHRIST." 189
selves for the careful reader of Der vorchristliche Jesus and Ecce Deus. Dr. Conybeare also marvels much at many contentions in these volumes, which seem to have such frightful mien as to be hated needs but to be seen. When he grows familiar with their face, we shall see what follows. Meantime let us deprecate any reference to Habakkuk: "Behold, ye despisers, and wonder and perish." But what if the historizing tendency of the Protochristians be queer and hard for Conybeare to understand? Does not Pindar say, "Truly, many things are wonderful"? The real question is not. Was it strange? but. Was it a fact? Did they actually his- torize? Let Conybeare himself answer, in his Myth, Magic, and Morals (p. 231) : "Here we see turned into incident an allegory often employed by Philo." And again: "What is metaphor and allegory in Philo was turned into history by the Christians."
Herewith, then, having noted everything relevant that seems worth note, and more, we close the review of this book, a work of learning and power, not indeed bringing new arms into the fray but wielding old ones with strength and with skill. The author deserves and will receive the hearty thanks of all who were curious to see the very best that could be done with "rusty weapons" such as, the able historicist Klostermann says, "should be laid aside in the corner." Regarding the tone I rise to no point of order ; Grat- tan has taught us that for some it is difficult to be severe without being unparliamentary. A reviewer in the Academy discovers in the book "a fine contempt" — and at times it might indeed appear to display a high disdain for certain things that other men of honor revere. However, the appearance is doubtless deceptive ; it is only the zeal of the author that hath eaten him up. Besides, the radical criticism is certainly irritating (it is not every man that will write with Holtzmann : "I am too old now to unlearn everything and learn it all over another way : but for much new knowledge and for many a new insight I thank you most heartily"), and Dr. Conybeare in- tends to show it all the fairness it deserves. Nevertheless, with all its rare merits and its modest ambition to serve as a model of moderation, the book remains one of heat rather than of light, not always both cool and clear. The judicious admirers of the great scholar will not secretly rejoice as they read it, but they may repeat the consoling words of Pindar: "And yet, with fair fortune for- getfulness may come."
MISCELLANEOUS.
GERMANY'S DESTRUCTION AS FORETOLD BY A FRENCHMAN.
In Major de Civrieux's book, La fin de tempire allemande. — La bataille du Champ des Bouleaux igi. .(Paris and Limoges, Henri Charles-Lavanzelle, 1912), we gain an interesting insight into the Belgian neutrality question as seen through French spectacles, and we get the impression that the invasion of Belgium by Germany was not only expected by France but ardently hoped for in order to make an end of Germany.
The book gives an imaginary picture of the end of Germany in the near future. This takes place in the following way : After the German fleet has been annihilated through a sudden attack by the English fleet, following, as the book says, the example of Japan in the Russo-Japanese war, without any further declaration of war, the invading German armies are defeated by the French at Apremont, southwest of Metz, then at Neufchateau, south of Toul, and on the Ourthe in Belgium; in the latter battle in conjunction with the English and Belgians. After these defeats the victors, strengthened further by the Dutch, press forward from different directions through the Rhine province and Westphalia, and finally make an end of Germany in "the battle of the Birch field" near Hamm. William II is also killed in this battle, as the last German emperor, his headquarters being smashed into a thousand fragments by bombs thrown from French flying machines.
In the book the following sentences are significant. First, that one in the preface, written by Major Driant, representative from Nancy, to the author of the book, and those by the author himself. Major Driant says: "The pro- posed violation of Belgian neutrality has long ceased to be a secret. True, every one resists this idea, we know that ; but in spite of this, and in conse- quence of the intimate relations between France and England, this violation is unavoidable. It is of the most pressing interest to Germany to march through Belgium as quickly as possible, first, in order to hinder the junction of the British forces and the northern French armies, second, in order to gain the shortest and most weakly defended route to Paris."
The author, Civrieux, says in his imaginary description of the future war : "As long as the Belgian border was barred to the French movements every French attack, which found itself confined within the narrow space between Basel and Mezieres, had to go to pieces against the powerful girdle of German fortifications in Alsace-Lorraine, and, behind them, against the fortified line of the Rhine. On this narrow space a campaign having a prospect of victory was impossible. Never could it have carried our troops along with enthusiasm. It would have come to a bitter and terrible struggle, and one of extreme sacri- fice, without a spark of hope for victory in the hearts of the fighters. On the contrary, the superior mass of the Germans would have crushed the French through its weight alone, for the mobility of the French would have been re- stricted by the narrowness of the war area, yes would have been made entirely ineffective. But now, all at once, the plains of Belgium were open to the French armies, where, besides, there were 100,000 Belgians ready to de- fend the violation of their neutrality. Now the prospect was altogether differ- ent. After a victorious fight on Belgian soil there would be an invasion into the enemy's country, toward the Lower Rhine, which was without fortifica- tions, hand in hand with the English ally who ruled the sea and would now set foot on the continent."
A. Kampmeier.
Iowa City, Ia., Feb. 11, 1915.
MISCELLANEOUS. 191
"BOS ET ASINUS" AGAIN.
That the reading in medio duoruni animalium is already found in the Septuagint all students of Biblical archeology know, myself not excepted. Note 4 of my brief paper in the January number of The Open Court makes mention of this passage in the LXX, and in my essay in Modern Language Notes (April, 1914) I quoted the corresponding Septuagint reading verbatim. Prof. H. J. Heuser must then have overlooked my footnote, else he would have known that the Itala did not form the last source of this erroneous version for me. I have mentioned the Itala as the version from which the Roman Breviary has taken the reading in medio duorum animalium verbally, but the Itala version is, of course, to be led back directly or indirectly to the LXX, for the Itala undoubtedly represents a Greek original prior to Origen's Hexapla. The Itala is the immediate, but not the ultimate source of the ver- sion in the Breviary.
In this footnote, which Professor Heuser seems to have overlooked or ignored in his criticism, I made the statement that the in medio duoruni ani- malium reading in the LXX is a patristic interpolation intended to make of this text a Messianic prophecy. It is inconceivable, as Professor Heuser in his comment in the February number of The Open Court would have it, that this corruption of the text was made by the Jewish rabbis (?), who, in fact, in their translation of the Masoretic text "were necessarily and entirely guided by the living tradition which had its focus in the synagogal lessons" (Encycl. Brit., article "Septuagint"). I am the last man on earth to take up the cudgels for the Jewish "rabbis," but as an unbiased student of ancient as well as modern literature I maintain that this wilful alteration of the text cannot be laid at the doors of the Alexandrian Hellenists of pre-Christian days. It is true that the palpable mistakes they otherwise made would go to show that though proficient in Greek they had "an inadequate knowledge of Hebrew" (ibid.), but this reading in medio duorum animalium instead of in medio annorum is beyond the least shadow of a doubt an intentional alteration, and these Hellenists living one and a half centuries before Christ had no motive whatsoever to corrupt the text. We must bear in mind that this erroneous passage is not due alone to a wrong pointing of an unpointed text, though one would expect that the translators, who were well familiar with the Bible, knew the correct pointing of this very common word ; in order to mispoint this word it was necessary for them to misread the word following, to sub- stitute false letters. And what is more, this very same word which the trans- lators mispointed, though in order to do so they had to corrupt the following word, was correctly pointed by them in the very same verse. Does common sense not tell us that this change was intentional ? And in order to remove just suspicion a commentary was added to the word when it was correctly pointed. To make my meaning clear let me place side by side the two ver- sions.
Habakkuk iii. 2
Septuagint.^ Vulgat.
Domine audivi auditionem tuam et Domine audivi auditionem tuam et
timui. Domine opus tuum, in medio timui. Domine opus tuum, in medio
duorum animalium. In medio anno- annorum vivifica illud. In medio an-
rum notum facies cum advenerit tem- norum notum facies. pus demonstraberis.
Professor Heuser thinks that in rendering the prophecy of Habakkuk into Greek the prophecy of Isaiah (i. 3) may have been ringing in the ears of the translator. Quite aside from the fact that Isaiah could not have meant anything else but the inferiority of Israel to the most stupid animals in his ingratitude to the Lord, the Giver of all life and sustenance. Professor Heuser
^ The Greek reads : Kupte eiaaK-fiKoa tt/v aKoriv aov, koI i(f>o^7i0r]v. KaTev6T)aa to, ^pya aov^ Kal e^iarriv. iv (leau Svo ^liiwv yvuiffOriar]^ ev rto iyyl^eiv ra 2tij eTnyvuaO-^ffr],
192 THE OPEN COURT.
might be interested to know that it was reserved to Cornelius to see in the two animals between which Christ was to be born the ox and the ass. First these animals were thought to be the Medes and the Persians. Then Theophy- lactus saw in these animals the two cherubim, others the two seraphim, others again the two robbers between whom the Man of Nazareth was crucified (Cf. Georges Duriez, La theologie dans le drame religieux en Alleniagne an moyen age, Lille and Paris, 1914, p. 240).
But though I hold the Church Fathers responsible for this spurious pas- sage I have not the least doubt of the purity of their motives, and my rev- erence for their fiery zeal in winning the world for Christ is not lessened by the fact that they had no scruples in putting into the mouth of a man who lived some six centuries before, words he would never have dreamt of saying. We all know that authors in those days were in the habit of attributing their works to men who lived centuries upon centuries before them with the purpose of gaining a better hearing. How many books in the Bible bear the names of men who have by no means written them. We must bear in mind that all the Christian evidence in those days was limited to the Bible. If the Jews interpreted everything out of, and, if need be, even into the Bible, the early Christians had to use the same weapons. Instead of calling this passage erroneous I consider it with Cornelius-a-Lapide (Comment, in Habac. Ill) prophetic. For though these words did not come from a man who lived six centuries before the supposed event, but possibly from a man who lived a century after it, they were nonetheless inspired — inspired by the loftiest and noblest motives.
Father Heuser is anxious to assure us at the close of his communication to The Open Court that the medieval mystery playwright was familiar with the corresponding passage in the Vulgate, a point which I have not touched at all in my paper. Many critics of medieval literature deny Biblical knowledge to the clerical dramatists of the Middle Ages. The prophetical quotations in the medieval mystery plays are so deficient and incorrect, as I have shown in my little work on the prophet-scenes in the medieval religious plays of Germany (Cf. Die Prophet enspriiche tind -citate im religiosen Drama des deutschen Mittelalters, Leipsic and Dresden, 1913, pp. 20-21 and App.) that I feel justi- fied in my statement {Modern Language Notes, April, 1914) that the Bible was for the medieval playwright a terra incognita. For a further defense of my standpoint and a repudiation of the charge of mal connaitre I'esprit du moyen age I refer my critic to my review of Duriez's works in one of the approaching numbers of Modern Language Notes.
Maximilian Josef Rudwin.
Purdue University.
NOTES.
The University of Pennsylvania has published, in connection with the Babylonian Section of its Museum, a volume entitled "Legal and Adminis- trative Documents from Nippur Chiefly from the Dynasties of Isin and Larsa," embodying the results of research work done by Dr. Edward Chiera, Harrison Research Fellow in Semitics in the University of Pennsylvania, on materials obtained in Nippur by four expeditions conducted by that in- stitution. The book contains 110 pages devoted chiefly to transliterations, translations and annotations of specimen texts, lists of date-formulae of the Isin and Larsa dynasties, and a list of personal names. Following the read- ing matter and occupying one-half of the volume are a large number of plates, chiefly autograph copies of the tablets in question. /i
SP
B. C. vs. A. D.
METHCSAIiEH lived nine hundred and sixtr-nine years and vrote all his letter* as his fathers did. Why shouldn't he? He had plenty oC time. With him it wasn't a case of savinectime but of killing time. But we don't live so lone nowadays and most of Q8 have gotten over the Methusaloh idea in the last thirty years. We have found that the time saved and the labor saved by the writing machine is worth saving by every- one who haswritine todo. Typewriting is two or three times faster than pen writing, it is easier and less fatlGruini;, it looks better and it is the up-to-date way to write.
Beasons a-plenty for buying a typewriter, don't you think T .' • . The tyi>ewriter for whieh VOU
and most people have been waiting is the new
\Remington JUNIOR Typewriter
Think of itt Here is a flrst-olass typewriter, a genuine Ilemtngton, carrying the iron- clad Remington guarantee and embodying just the qualities you need.
The price of the Remington Junior is $50.00, cash with order. How does it differ from the standard hundred-dollar Itemingtous? Only smaller, and IlKhter, with k fevrer parts— just the machine you need for the simpler uses, such as manuscript Ksmingten X and letter writing. For Soij.OO we will sell you a Remington Junior on terms of ^pewriter Co. X S^.OO down and fc.OO a month.
□ X^ Better seize this opportunity and buy now. Cut out the attached coupon
X and send it to us with S5.00 in cash, check or money order, and we will I enclose $5.00. ^^ eend the machine.
Send me » Remington ^k ^ ^^
ttZlZZ':utih'tn\ Remington Typewriter Company
'o:wai'yeTu:dme"t*h"|5'w,\ [Incorporat.dl
lril?tS:rchtX„. A consumers Building. Chicago, 111.
pay for it sn additional aura of |50, in monthly payment! of l&.OO eacb
□ or
Please send me booklet giving full description of Remington Junior Type writer.
Mark (X) in the proper square and (iga your name and address. ,
New and Built for YOU Remington J UlllOr Typewriter
Here is the typewriter for which you hav e been waiting. Here is a first-class typewriter, a genuine Remington Typewriter product, carrying the iron-clad Remington guarantee and embodying just the qualities you need.
Of course you need a typewriter. Everybody needs one. The time saved and the labor saved by the typewriter is worth saving by you and by everyone who has writing to do. The price of the Remington Junior is $50.00, cash with order. It differs from the standard hundred-dollar Remingtons only in these points: It is smaller, it is lighter, it is designed for the simpler uses, such as manuscript and Ictter-veriting. But for these purposes it has no superior. -
Here then is your opportunity — your first opportunity — to buy an absolutely first- grade typewriter at a low price. Better seize the opportunity and buy now. You need not wait to buy until you get all the money, for we have arranged special easy terms of pay- ment. For $55.00 we will sell you a ,......—.......................................
Remington Junior on terms of $5.00 ' ^"^ IX) •>« tl»e proper square and ■!(■ yoor name and address.
down and $5.00 a month. Cutout i 12
the attached coupon and send it to us with $5,00 in cash, check or money order and we will send the machine.
Remington Typewriter Company
[Incorporated!
Consumers Building. Chicago, III.
J Kemlngton Typewriter Company
i D I enclose herewith t&.OO, on receipt of which please send m»
! a Remington Junior Typewriter. It is undentuod that 1 may re-
i turn the machine if I choose, within ten days of its receipt and that
■ you will refund to me the $5.00. less transportation charges.
I If I retain the machine. X agree to pay for it an additional sun*
I of 150.00 in monthly payments of 15.00 each, OR
I Q Please send me booklet giving full description of the Remiog.
■ ton Junior Typewriter.
The Open Court Publications
Were founded in 1887
BY EDWARD C. HEGELER
of La Salle, Illinois
The Open Court
An illustrated monthly magazine devoted to the Science of Religion, the Religion of Science, and the Extension of the Religious Parliament Ideas. $1.00 a year; ;v single copy, 10 cents.
The Monist
A quarterly magazine devoted to the Philosophy of Sci- ence. $2.00 a year; single copy. 60 cents.
Books on Sciences
A. Theory, Evolution, Anthropology, Biology, Psycho-
logy, General Philosophy of Science.
B. Mathematics and Geometry.
C. Physics.
Books on Religions
A. History of Religions, Comparative Study of Religions.
B. Philosophy of Religion.
C. Devotional and Literary Works.
D. Spiritualism, Magic and Myths.
Books on Philosophies
A. History, Reprints and Translations of Classical Works.
B. Modern Philosophical Works.
C. Ethics, Education, Ecomonics.
D. Aesthetics, Literature, Art.
Book Room, 1001 Peoples Gas Bldg. Special Sale This Month Catalogue and Sample Copies Sent Free on Request
DR. PAUL CARUS, Editor and Manager
The Open Court Publishing Co.
122 S. Michigan Avenue 149 Strand
Chicago, Illinois London, W. G., England